IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


1.0 


1.1 


U£|2B  12.5 
■tt  Ui2  122 
lAo    12.0 


III 


I 

nnii 

m 


IL25  III  1.4 


1^1 


1.6 


Photographic 

Sdences 

Corporation 


?3  M<ST  MAIN  STRUT 

WnSTIR.N.Y.  14510 

(7t6)t72-4S03 


■1>^ 


V 


^Q 


,V 


S> 


<^ 


m^ 


i\ 


CIHM/ICMH 

Microfiche 

Series. 


CIHIVI/ICMH 
Collection  de 
microfiches. 


Canadian  Institute  for  Historical  Microreproductions  /  Institut  Canadian  de  microreproductions  historiques 


Technical  and  Bibliographic  Notes/Notas  tachniquat  at  bibliographiquas 


Tha  Instituta  has  attamptad  to  obtain  tha  bast 
original  copy  availabia  for  filming.  Faaturas  of  this 
copy  which  may  ba  bibliographically  uniqua, 
which  may  altar  any  of  tha  imagas  in  tha 
raproduction.  or  which  may  significantly  changa 
tha  usual  mathod  of  filming,  ara  chackad  balow. 


Colourad  covars/ 
^  '    Couvartura  da  coulaur 


I      I    Covars  damagad/ 


D 


□ 


D 
D 


D 


Couvartura  andommagte 


Covars  rastorad  and/or  laminatad/ 
Couvartura  rastaurte  at/ou  palliculAa 


I      I   Covar  titia  missing/ 


La  titra  da  couvartura  manqua 


I      I    Colourad  maps/ 


Cartas  gtegraphiquas  an  coulaur 


Colourad  ink  (i.a.  othar  than  biua  or  black)/ 
Encra  da  coulaur  (i.a.  autra  qua  blaua  ou  noira) 


I      I   Colourad  platas  and/or  illustrations/ 


D 


Planchas  at/ou  illustrations  an  coulaur 


Bound  with  othar  matarial/ 
RaliA  avac  d'autras  documants 


Tight  binding  may  causa  shadows  or  distortion 
along  Intorior  margin/ 

La  re  liur«  sarria  paut  causar  da  I'ombra  ou  da  la 
distortion  la  long  da  la  marga  intAriaura 

Blank  laavas  addad  during  rastoration  may 
appaar  within  tha  ti>>xt.  Whanavar  possibia,  thasa 
hava  baan  omitted  from  filming/ 
II  sa  paut  qua  cartainas  pagas  blanches  ajouttes 
lors  d'una  restauration  apparaissant  dans  la  texte. 
mais.  lorsqua  ceia  Atait  possible,  ces  pages  n'ont 
pas  4t4  filmtes. 

Additional  comments:/ 
Commentairas  supplimantairas; 


L'Institut  a  microf  ilmA  la  maillaur  axemplaira 
qu'il  lui  a  iti  possible  de  se  procurer.  Les  details 
da  cet  exemplaire  qui  sont  peut-Atre  uniques  du 
point  de  vue  bibiiographiqua,  qui  pauvent  modifier 
une  image  reproduite.  ou  qui  peuvent  exiger  une 
modification  dans  la  m6thoda  normale  de  filmage 
sont  indiqute  ci-dessous. 


r~n   Coloured  pages/ 


D 


Pagas  da  couleur 

Pagas  damaged/ 
Pagas  andommagtes 

Pagas  restored  and/oi 

Pages  restaur^as  at/ou  pallicuiies 

Pages  discoloured,  stained  or  foxei 
Pages  dicoior^es,  tacheties  ou  piqudes 

Pages  detached/ 
Pages  ditachies 

Showthroughy 
Transparence 

Quality  of  prin 

Quality  inigaia  de  I'impression 

Includes  supplementary  materii 
Comprend  du  material  suppl^mantaire 

Only  edition  available/ 
Seule  Mition  disponible 


I — I  Pages  damaged/ 

I      I  Pagas  restored  and/or  laminated/ 

r~7l  Pages  discoloured,  stained  or  foxed/ 

I      I  Pages  detached/ 

r~~|  Showthrough/ 

I      I  Quality  of  print  varies/ 

I     I  Includes  supplementary  material/ 

I — I  Only  edition  available/ 


T 

si 
T 

M 

: 

bi 

rll 
rs 
m 


Pagas  wholly  or  partially  obscured  by  errata 
slips,  tissues,  etc..  have  been  refilmed  to 
ensure  the  best  possible  image/ 
Les  pages  totalement  ou  partiallemant 
obscurcies  par  un  fauillet  d'errata,  una  pelure, 
etc.,  ont  M  filmAes  A  nouveau  de  faqon  A 
obtenir  la  mailieure  image  possible. 


This  item  is  filmed  at  tha  reduction  ratio  checked  below/ 

Ce  document  est  film*  au  taux  da  reduction  indiqui  ci-dessous. 

10X  14X  ItX  22X 


26X 


30X 


J 


12X 


16X 


20X 


24X 


28X 


32X 


Th«  copy  filmed  h«r«  ha*  b—n  r«produc«d  thanks 
to  th«  o^naroaity  of: 

Library  Division 

Pro  fincial  Archives  of  British  Columbia 


L'axamplaira  filmA  f ut  raproduit  grica  A  la 
gAnArosit*  da: 

Library  Division 

Provincial  Archives  of  British  Columbia 


Tha  imagas  appaaring  hara  ara  tha  bast  quality 
possibia  conaidaring  tha  condition  and  lagibility 
of  tha  original  copy  and  in  kaaping  with  tha 
filming  contract  spacifications. 


Las  images  suivantaa  ont  4tA  raproduitas  avac  ia 
plus  grand  soin,  compta  tanu  da  la  condition  at 
da  ia  nattat*  da  Taxampiaira  film*,  at  an 
conformity  avac  las  conditions  du  contrat  da 
filmaga. 


Original  copies  in  printed  paper  covers  are  filmed 
beginning  with  the  front  cover  and  ending  on 
the  last  page  with  a  printed  or  illustrated  impres- 
sion, or  the  back  cover  when  appropriate.  All 
other  original  copies  ere  filmed  beginning  on  the 
first  page  with  a  printed  or  illustrated  impres- 
sion, and  ending  on  the  last  page  with  a  printed 
or  illustrated  impression. 


Les  exemplairas  originaux  dont  la  couvarture  en 
papier  est  imprimie  sent  filmte  en  commen^ent 
par  la  premier  plat  at  mn  terminent  soit  par  la 
darniire  page  qui  comporte  une  empreinte 
d'impression  ou  d'illustration.  soit  par  la  second 
plat,  salon  la  cas.  Tous  las  autres  exemplairas 
originaux  sent  f  iimis  en  commenpent  par  la 
pramiire  page  qui  comporte  une  empreinte 
d'impression  ou  d'illustration  at  en  terminent  par 
la  darniAre  page  qui  comporte  une  telle 
empreinte. 


The  last  recorded  frame  on  each  microfiche 
shell  contain  the  symbol  — ^  (meaning  "CON- 
TINUED"), or  the  symbol  V  (meaning  "END"), 
whichever  applies. 


Un  des  symboles  suivants  apparaitra  sur  ia 
derniAre  image  de  cheque  microfiche,  selon  le 
cas:  la  symbols  — »>  signifie  "A  SUIVRE  ".  le 
symbols  ▼  signifie  "FIN". 


Maps,  plates,  charts,  etc..  may  be  filmed  at 
different  reduction  ratios.  Those  too  large  to  be 
entirely  included  in  one  exposure  are  filmed 
beginning  in  the  upper  left  hand  corner,  left  to 
right  and  top  to  bottom,  as  many  frames  as 
required.  The  following  diagrams  illustrate  the 
method: 


Les  cartes,  planches,  tableaux,  etc..  peuvent  Atre 
fiimis  A  des  tsux  de  reduction  diff Arents. 
Lorsque  le  document  est  trop  grand  pour  Atre 
reproduit  en  un  seul  ciich*.  il  est  f  iimA  A  partir 
de  I'angle  supArieur  gauche,  de  gauche  A  droite. 
et  de  haut  en  bas.  en  prenant  le  nombre 
d'images  nAcesssire.  Les  diagrammes  suivants 
illustrent  la  mAthode. 


1 

2 

3 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

» k  * 


i  \ 


/ 


*' 


;  \ 


No. 


LEGISLATIVE 


UBRARY. 


vaiucb  at  $ ^ 


cli  iv^  cfadM^icb  in  tAe  (Eal:aEo<jue  ai 


»• 


I'rovincialLibrarvJuWJ^CI/VlClJl'. 
Victoria,  B.  G.,  January  Ist,  189^.. 


I. 


-iiiMfnuilii 


■■(,■ 


'j — i..,:jk  ■- .'..  .-•vwMBirji 


T 


mmmmm 


EVIDElSrOE 


lOB 


THE  UNITED  STATES 

IN  TBB  If  ATrSB  OF  TBS  ChAtMB  OV  THK 

HUDSON'S  BAT  AND  PFGET'S  SOUND 
AGRICULTURAL  COMPANIES, 


PBRDINO  BKFOBB  THB 


BRITISH  AND  AMERICAN  JOINT  COMMISSION, 


FOB  TBB 


FINAL  SETTLEMENT  OF  THE  SAME. 


s-" 


MISCELLANEOUS. 


■•■((^it  AUG31  1894    *J) 


WASHINGTON,  D.  C: 

K'OILL  «  WITBBBOW,  PBIMnmS  AND  BTEBBOmBBS. 
1867. 


"3>!w?*'j'v~  '■-■■■r^mtnitmrn-" 


..  4- 


irWIilWW  mttmummtM 


' 


V«9 


CONTENTS. 


Motion,  CorreRpon(]ence,  and  Agreement  as  to  Evidence  in  Utrnl  Britain...      1 

Kobertu,  Edward,  Deposition  of 13 

Armit.  Edward,  "  17 

Jnternationnl  Financial  Society,  (ProKpectus) « !..    20 

Hpecimen  of  Acccnnt* V>2 

Mactavt»li,  Dngald,  Sapplemental  examination  of 41 

Farm  1,  William  H.  "  " 133 

Lftt'/i'  annexed  to  snppleraental  examination  of  Mr.  Mactavish 137 

Mr,  Tolmie'»  Exhibit  of  Books  and  Accounts 180 

I,ii»t»  of  Doenmentary  Evidence 205 

List  of  Maps  and  Tlates 30r» 

List  of  rhotographs 397 


-  ^?a^j»>>B.«!»R:.^*?ww^-'^"^^'»fy^^r-a«^       1 1  IIIIIIJil  j^|Jj^||^;,,||py^||y^^5^.f>^,, 


i. 


T-r 


BRITISH  AND  AMERICAN  JOINT  COMMISSION 


OSTHa 


HUDSON'S  BAY  AND  PUGET'S  SOUND  AGRICUL- 
TURAL  OOltfPANIES'  CLAIMS. 


<■> 


In  the  matter  of  the  Claim  of  the  Hudson* s  Bay  Company  vs.  the 
United  States  of  America. 

It  is  moved  by  the  undersigned  Counsel  that  an  order  or 
commission  be  issued  fof  taking  evidence,  as  well  on  the 
part  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  as  of  the  United  States 
of  America,  in  London,  or  elsawhere  in  Great  Britain ;  that 
such  order  or  commission  be  addressed  to  any  judge  or  clerk 
of  a  court  of  record,  barrister,  solicitor,  or  attorney,  court 
commissioner,  justice  of  the  peace,  or  notary  public,  or  to 
such  other  officers  or  persons  as  the  Honorable  the  Commis- 
sioners may  be  pleased  to  designate;  that  the  witnesses  pro- 
duced by  either  party  be  examined  and  cross-examined  viva 
voce,  after  reasonable  notice  to  the  other  party ;  that  all  ob- 
jections to  evidence  and  other  questions  of  law  or  practice 
be  reserved,  and  that  the  evidence,  with  all  the  documents 
and  papers,  together  with  a  report  of  all  such  objections,  be 
returned  before  the  Honorable  the  Commissioners  with  all 
convenient  diligence. 

Chas.  D.  Day, 
For  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company. 

24th  July,  1866. 

I  assent  to  the  above, 

C.  CusHiNa. 


1  B 


•mmn 


■•.a!|'J!«3«!J«<*:rS!!«!<Kt?1 


tiism 


^fm^f^p^f  "'\pi#'""'f*''^*P"tWP^*'''^ 


-^^K^nm 


a 


BBITI8H  AND  AmBRIOAN  JoINT  OOMMIISTON, 

ON  Hudson's  Bat  and  Pugbt's  Sound 

AORIOULTUBAL  COMPANIES'  OlAIMS. 

In  the  matter  of  the  Claim  of  the  Pnget'e  Sound  Agrtonltural  Company 
against  the  United  States  of  America. 

It  is  moved  by  the  undersigned  Counsel  that  an  order,  or 
commission  be  issued  for  taking  evidence,  as  well  on  the 
part  of  the  Puget's  Sound  Ai^ricultnral  Company,  as  of  the 
United  States  of  America,  in  London,  or  elsewhere  in  Great 
Britain ;  that  such  order  or  commission  be  addressed  to  any 
judge  .or  clerk  of  a  court  of  record,  barrister,  solicitor,  or 
attorney,  court  commissioner,  justice  of  the  peace,  or  notary 
public,  or  to  such  other  officers  or  persons  as  the  Honorable 
the  Commissioners  may  be  pleased  to  designate;  that  the 
witnesses  produced  by  either  party  be  examined  and  cross- 
examined  viva  voce,  after  reasonable  notice  to  the  other 
party ;  that  all  objections  to  evidence  and  other  questions 
of  law  or  practice  be  reserved,  and  that  the  evidence  and  all 
the  documents  and  papers,  together  with  the  report  of  all 
such  objections,  be  returned  before  the  Honorable  the  Com- 
missioners with  all  convenient  speed. 

Chas.  D.  Day, 
For  the  Piufet's  Sound  Agricultural  Company. 

24th  My,  1866. 

I  assent  to  the  a'  ove. 

C.  Gushing. 


Mr.  Cushing  to  Mr.  C.  A.  Seioard. 

855  H'  Street,  Washington,  July  18, 1866. 
Sir  :  Herewith  you  will  receive  the  following  documents, 
namely : 

1.  The  authority  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  empowering 
you  to  act  for  the  United  States  in  the  taking  of  evidence 
in  England,  whether  for  or  against  the  United  States,  in  the 
matter  of  the  claims  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  and  Puget's  Sound 
Agricultural  Companies. 


mummm^pmiy-mmmfm'fmv 


r 

e 
e 
kt 

y 

»r 

y 

Br 

18 

ill 
ill 
n- 


2.  Daly  certified  copies  of  agreements  between  the  Hon. 
Charles  D.  Day  and  myself,  the  official  counsel  of  those 
Companies  here,  and  of  the  United  States,  relative  to  the 
manner  of  taking  evidence  in  England. 

8.  Copy  of  the  memorial  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company, 
and  of  that  of  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company, 
now  pending  before  the  International  Commission  At  Wash- 
ington. 

4.  A  memoir  on  the  subject  of  the  claims  of  those  two 
Companies,  according  to  the  view  thereof  taken  by  the 
United  States. 

6.  A  memorandum  of  certain  specific  points  of  inquiry 
which,  in  the  interest  of  the  United  States,  it  is  deemed  de- 
sirable to  investigatie  at  London,  lilher  by  calling  for  papers 
or  entries  in  the  archives  of  those  Oompanies,  or  by  exami- 
nation of  the  proper  officers  thereof. 

I  have  to  beg  you,  in  tfa  rst  place,  to  possess  yourself 
fully  of  the  contents  of  these  accompanying  documents,  and 
then  to  exercise  your  own  best  jadgment  and  discretion  for 
thti  protection  of  the  rights  of  tho  United  States,  as  well  in 
the  cross-examination  of  witnesses,  or  the  scrutiny  of  docu- 
ments produced  by  either  of  said  Companies,  as  in  the  pro- 
duction and  examination  of  witnesses,  and  the  procurement 
of  documents  in  behalf  of  the  United  States. 

You  will  observe  that  the  agreement  between  Mr.  Day 
and  myself,  while  it  names  Mr.  Thomas  Maynard  as  the 
Solicitor  of  the  Companies,  yet  contemplates  the  possibility 
of  some  other  person  being  employed  to  the  transaction  of 
the  present  business;  while  the  same  agreement  contem- 
plates that  the  Solicitor  appearing  for  the  United  States  shall, 
in  person,  communicate  his  authority  to  the  Solicitor  of  the 
Companies.  To  prevent  all  misapprehension  in  this  respect, 
I  suggest  to  you,  in  concurrence  with  Mr.  Day,  that  you 
communicate  in  the  first  instance  with  Thomas  Fraser,  Esq., 
Secretary,  Hudson's  Bay  House,  London. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  very  respectfully, 

C.   CUSHINO. 

Oounsd  of  the  United  States. 
Clabbnob  A.  Sbw/bd,  Esq. 


^.^.r^w. 


-:-.w^..-— ..rfl-- 


^.«^i«.?r"'-'Tww<r'-*-'^»*--*i»«s«*-^''««^  -j^' 


r 


1 


British  and  American  Joint  Commission, 

ON  Hud8©n'8  Bay  and  Puget's  Sound 

Agricultural  Companies'  Claims. 

In  the  matter  of  the  Claim  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  against  the 

United  States. 

It  is  hereby  stipulated  and  agreed  between  the  undersigned^ 
Counsel  for  said  parties,  respectively,  that  any  and  all  evi- 
dence which  either  party  may  desire  to  take,  whether  in 
London,  or -elsewhere  in  Great  Britain,  may,  and  shall  be 
taken  under  the  following  conditions,  namely  : 

First.  Such  evidence  shall  be  taken  before  any  judge, 
clerk  of  court,  barrister,  solicitor,  attorney,  court  commis- 
sioner, justice  of  the  peace,  notary  public,  or  such  other  offi 
cer  or  person,  authorized  by  the  law  of  the  place  and  country 
to  take  depositions,  who  shall  be  mutually  agreed  upon  by 
the  parties  or  selected  by  the  party  in  whose  behalf  the 
evidence  is  taken. 

Second.  The  Hudson's  Bay  Company  shall  be  represented 
in  this  behalf  by  Thomas  Maynard,  of  London,  in  England, 
Esquire,  solicitor,  or  by  such  other  person  as  they  may  ap- 
point, with  due  notice  to  the  Solicitor  of  the  United  States 
as  well  to  attend  to  and  conduct  the  taking  of  evidence  in 
their  behalf,  and  to  give  notice  thereof,  as  to  receive  notice 
of  evidence  to  be  produced  by  the  United  States,  and  to 
cross-examine  witnesses,  and  to  do  all  other  acts  in  the  prem- 
ises needful  and  proper  to  be  done  for  the  protection  of  the 
rights  and  interests  of  the  said  Company. 

Third.  The  Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States  will, 
by  proper  authority  under  his  hand,  appoint  a  suitable  per- 
son as  solicitor  to  represent  the  United  States  in  this  behalf, 
to  attend  to  and  conduct  the  taking  of  evidence  for  them,  to 
receive  notice  of  evidence  to  be  produced  by  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company,,  and  cross-examine  witnesses,  and  to  do  all 
other  acts  in  the  premises  needful  and  proper  to  be  done  for 
the  protection  of  the  interests  of  the  United  States.  Such 
solicitor  so  appointed  to  act  for  the  United  States  will,  as 
soon  as  ii,ay  be,  in  person  communicate  his  authority  to  the 


^«*i1 


» 


•^m- 


Solicitor  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  and  be  prepared  to 
act  with  him  in  the  premises. 

Fourth.  Reasonable  notice  shall  be  given  by  either  party 
to  the  other  of  the  time  and  place  of  taking  evidence,  with 
name  or  names  of  the  witness  to  be  examined. 

Fifth.  The  witnesses  produced  by  either  party  shall  be  ex- 
amined viva  voce. 

Sixth.  All  objections  to  evidence  or  other  questions  of  law 
or  practice  arising  in  the  course  of  taking  such  evidence 
shall  be  reserved. 

Seventh.  The  evidence  with  all  the  documents  and  papers 
or  certified  copies  of  them,  together  with  the  report  of  all 
such  objections,  shall  be  returned  with  all  convenient  dili- 
gence, addressed  to  the  Honorable  the  Joint  Commissioners, 
at  Washington,  in  the  United  States. 

C.  CUSHINO, 

'  Counsel  for  the  United  States. 

Chas.  D.  Day, 
Counsel  for  the  H.  B.  Co. 
nth  July,  1866. 


^    British  and  American  Joint  Commission, 

ON  Hudson'?  Bay  and  Pugbt's  Sound 

A  GFJCULTURAL  COMPANIES'  CLAIMS. 

No.  356  H  Street  North,  Washington,  July  16, 1866. 
I  certify  that  the  within  is  a  true  copy  of  the  original  on 
file  in  this  office. 

George  Gibbs, 
Clerk  to  the  Commissioner  on  the  part  of  the  United  States. 


United  States  OP  America,  1  • 

Department  of  State.    '     j  '. 

To  ALL  TO  WHOM  THESE  PRESENTS  SHALL  COME,  GREETING : 

I  certify  that  George  Gibbs,  whose  name  is  subscribed  to 
the  paper  hereunto  annexed,  is  now,  and  was  at  the  time  of 


K 


4-'sv-v  **^ 


liummmmi 


mtttm/tm 


■MUMl't^'' 


.iiffli4''"^*i'**.^^W,»^!' 


6 

subscribing  the  same,  clerk  to  the  Commissioner  on  the  part 
the  United  States  to  the  British  and  American  Joint  Com- 
mission on  Hudson's  Bay  and  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural 
Companies'  Claims  duly  commissioned ;  and  that  full  faith 
and  confidence  are  due  to  his  acts  as  such. 
In  testimony  whereof,  I,  William  H.  Seward,  Secretary  of 
State  of  the  United  States,  have  hereunto  sub- 
[SEAL.]    scribed  my  name  and  caused  the  seal  of  the  De- 
partment of  State  to  be  afiixed. 
Done  at  the  City  of  Washington  this  seventeenth  day  of 
July,  A.  D.  1866,  and  of  the  Independence  of  the  United 
States  of  America  the  ninety-first. 

William  H.  Seward. 


Au' 


British  and  American  Joint  Commission, 

ON  Hudson's  Bay  and  Puget's  Sound 
Agricultural  Companies'  Claims. 

In  the  matter  of  the  Claim  of  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company 
against  the  United  States. 

It  is  hereby  stipulated  and  agreed  between  the  under- 
sighed,  Counsel  for  said  parties,  respectively,  that  any  and 
all  evidence  which  either  party  may  desire  to  take,  whether 
in  London,  or  elsewhere  in  Great  Britain,  may,  and  shall  be 
taken  under  the  following  conditions,  namely : 

First.  Such  evidence  shall  be  taken  before  any  judge, 
clerk  of  court,  barrister,  solicitor,  attorney,  court  commis- 
sioner, justice  of  the  peace,  notary  public,  or  such  other  offi- 
cer or  person  authorized  by  the  law  of  the  place  and  country 
to  take  depositions,  who  shall  be  mutually  agreed  upon  by 
the  parties  or  selected  by  the  party  in  whose  behalf  the  evi- 
dence is  taken. 

Second.  The  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company  shall 
be  represented  in  this  behalf  by  Thomas  Maynard,  of  Lon- 
don, Esquire,  solicitor,  or  by  such  other  person  as  may  be 
appointed  by  the  Company,  with  due  notice  to  the  Solicitor 
of  the  United  States,  as  well  to  attend  to  and  conduct  the 


taking  of  evidence  in  their  behalf,  and  to  give  notice  thereof, 
as  to  receive  notice  of  evidence  to  be  produced  by  the  Uni- 
ted States,  and  to  cross-examine  witnesses,  and  to  do  all 
other  acts  in  the  premises  needful  and  proper  to  be  done  for 
the  protection  of  the  rights  and  interests  of  the  said  Com- 
pany. 

Third.  The  Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States  will, 
by  proper  authority  under  his  hand,  appoint  a  suitable  per- 
son as  solicitor  to  represent  the  United  States  in  this  behalf, 
to  attend  to  and  conduct  the  taking  of  evidence  for  them,  to 
receive  notice  of  evidence  to  be  produced  by  the  Puget's 
Sound  Agricultural  Company,  and  cross-examine  witnesses, 
and  to  do  all  other  acts  in  the  premises  needful  and  proper 
to  be  done  for  the  protection  of  the  interests  of  the  United 
States.  Such  solicitor  so  appointed  to  act  for  the  United 
States  will,  as  soon  as  may  be,  in  person  communicate  his 
authorily  to  the  Solicitor  of  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural 
Company,  and  be  prepared  to  act  with  him  in  the  premises. 

Fourth.  Reasonable  notice  shall  be  given  by  either  party 
to  the  other  of  the  time  and  place  of  taking  evidence,  with 
the  name  or  names  of  the  witness  to  be  examined. 

Fifth.  The  witnesses  produced  by  either  party  shall  be  ex- 
amined viva  voce. 

Sixth.  All  objections  to  evidence  or  other  questions  of  law 
or  practice  arising  in  the  course  of  taking  such  evidence 
shall  be  reserved. 

Seventh.  The  evidence,  with  all  the  documents  and  papers, 
or  certified  copies  of  them,  together  with  the  report  of  such 
objections,  shall  be  returned  with  all  convenient  diligence, 
addressed  to  the  Honorable  the  Joint  Commissioners,  at 
Washington,  in  the  United  States. 

^  C.  CUSHINQ, 

Counsel  for  the  United  States. 
Ohas.  D.  Day, 
;  '  Counsel  for  the  P.  S.  A.  Co. 

Ju/yll,  1866. 


MP 


laMMiHiaiaM«|M«W 


MMtMMa 


■>■— ivmiinaf'*" 


8 


Bbitish  and  Aubrioan  Joint  Oohuission, 

ON  Hudson's  Bat  and  Pugbt's  Sound 

Agricultural  Companibs'  Claims. 

No.  856  H  Street  North,  "Washington,  July  16, 1866. 
I  certify  that  the  within  is  a  true  copy  of  the  original  on 
file  in  this  office. 

George  Gibbs, 
Clerk  to  (he  Commissioner  on  the  part  of  the  United  States. 

United  States  op  America,  \ 
Department  of  State.         j 

To  all  to  whom  these  presents  shall  come,  Greeting  : 

I  certify  that  George  Gibbs,  whose  name  is  subscribed  to 
the  paper  hereunto  annexed,  is  now,  and  was  at  the  time  of 
subscribing  the  same,  clerk  to  the  Commissioner  on  the 
part  of  the  United  States  to  the  British  and  American  Joint 
Commission  on  Hudson's  Bay  and  Puget's  Sound  Agricul- 
tural Companies'  claims,  duly  commissioned ;  and  that  full 
faith  and  confidence  are  due  to  his  acts  as  such. 
In  testimony  whereof,  I,  William  H.  Seward,  Secretary  of 
State  of  the  United  States,  have  hereunto  sub- 
,  [seal.]    scribed  my  name  and  caused  the  seal  of  the  De- 
partment of  State  to  be  affixed. 
Done  at  the  City  of  Washington,  this  seventeenth  day  of 
July,  A.  D.  1866,  and  of  the  Independence  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  the  ninety-first. 

William  H.  Seward. 


Mr,  C.  A,  Seward  to  Hon  W.  H.  Seward. 


New  York,  September  29, 1866. 
The  Hon.  William  H.  Seward,  y 

Secretary  of  State,  Washington  D.  C. 
Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  report  in  the  above  entitled 
matter,  that  on  the  23d  of  July  last,  I  was  notified  at  Baden 
Baden,  by  Mr.  Moran,  Secretary  of  Legation  at  London, 


that  the  instructions  and  papers  promised  by  Mr.  Gushing 
had  arrived  at  the  Legation,  and  were  there  awaiting  my 
attention.  I  immediately  repaired  to  London,  procured  the 
papers,  and  after  acquainting  myself  with  their  contents, 
placed  myself  in  communication  with  Sir  Edmund  Head, 
Governor  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company.  He  promised  me 
every  facility  in  making  the  investigation  desired  by  Mr. 
Gushing,  but  before  allowing  any  examination  to  be  made, 
he  referred  the  whole  matter,  together  with  myself,  to  Mr. 
Denton,  the  Solicitor  of  the  Gompany.  I  called  upon  him, 
and  he  promised  equal  facilities  with  Sir  Edmund  Head,  but, 
in  turn,  requested  me  to  await  the  return  of  one  of  the 
counsel  for  the  Gompany,  who  was  professionally  engaged 
in  some  provincial  town.  In  the  meantime,  Mr.  Denton  re- 
quested me  to  furnish  a  statement  of  the  points  as  to  which 
the  two  Companies  were  desired  to  give  information.  I  did 
80  at  once,  and  finally  prevailed  upon  Mr.  Denton  to  forego 
the  attendance  of  the  counsel  of  the  Gompany,  and  himself 
to  attend  the  examination  on  their  behalf.  He  finally  con- 
sented to  do  this,  and  upon  the  agreed  day  he  produced  two 
witnesses,  who  he  said  were  the  only  two  persons  in  the 
employ  of  the  Companies  in  London  who  could  furnish  any 
information  upon  any  of  the  points  named  in  the  furnished 
statement.  The  examination  of  those  two  witnesses  is  here- ' 
with  submitted.  Mr.  Denton  marked  several  points  for  cross- 
examination,  but  after  consultation  with  the  officers  of  the 
Gompany,  he  informed  me  that  all  cross-examination  was 
waived.  He  desired,  however,  to  submit  two  schedules  on 
behalf  of  the  Companies,  and  said  he  forward  them  to  me  at 
Paris.  He  did  so,  and  they  will  be  found  among  the  papers. 
I,  of  course,  had  no  opportunity  to  cross-examine  upon  the 
contents  of  these  papers. 

I  return,  herewith,  all  the  papers  forwarded  to  me  at 
London.  *  *  *  *  * 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  great  respect  your  obedient 
servant,  '  ^^!^v 

/        G.  A.  Seward. 


5 
J 


10 


Mr.  C.  A.  Seward  to  Mr.  Cashing. 

New  York,  September  29, 1866. 
The  Hon.  Caleb  Oushino, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

Mt  Dear  Sir  :  I  duly  received  in  London  the  papers  in 
the  matter  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  and  Puget's  Sound  Com- 
panies, sent  by  you  to  me,  and  I  have  to-day  forwarded  to 
the  Secretary  of  State  the  result  of  my  labors  in  London, 
including  in  the  package  all  the  papers  sent  to  me.  I  en- 
deavored, as  faithfully  as  I  could,  to  elucidate  all  the  infor- 
mation requested  in  your  statement  of  points.  Of  course  I 
had  some  difficulty  in  procuring  any  information.  Although 
the  Company  and  their  counsel  asseverated  entire  willing- 
ness to  furnish  every  thing  desired,  yet  you  know  how  hope- 
less a  task  it  would  have  been  for  me  to  sit  down  in  iront  of 
the  books  of  a  company  which  claims  to  have  been  incorpo- 
rated since  1670,  and  to  find  out  from  personal  examination 
of  the  books  anything  which  would  have  been  of  use  to  you. 
I,  therefore,  furnished  the  Solicitor  of  the  Companies  with  a 
statement  in  writing  of  the  points  on  which  I  desired  infor- 
mation, and  requested  him  to  furnish  me  with  witnesses  who 
could  answer  the  questions  springing  from  those  points. 

After  much  delay,  owing  to  the  fact  that  an  English  solici- 
tor hesitates  to  invade  the  domain  of  the  barrister,  and  to 
cross-examine  orally  a  witness  in  a  legal  proceeding,  two 
witnesses  were  produced  to  me— one  the  aged  book-keeper 
of  the  Company,  and  the  other  a  sort  of  sub-accountant. 
The  examination  will  best  advise  you  how  successful  I  was, 
but  I  could  not  elucidate,  as  I  desired,  some  of  the  points 
mentioned  in  your  written  instructions. 

1.  The  prospectus  annexed  shows  that  the  value  of  the 
property  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  was  £1,023,669,  but 
of  what  this  was  made  up,  I  could  not  procure  any  informa- 
tion. The  examination  extended  over  much  more  time  than 
appears  from  the  report,  for  only  such  answers  were  put 


'^^tm*mm 


11 


down  as  tended  to  throw  light  upon  the  points  suggested  by 
you.  At  any  rate  that  valuation,  as  stated  in  your  instruc- 
tions, was  verified  by  the  production  of  the  prospectus. 

2.  The  change  in  the  organization  of  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company  was  fully  explained  by  the  witnesses.  It  was 
in  brief,  this:  The  London  Financial  Society  agreed  to 
purchase  up  the  stock,  water  it,  and  then  reissue  it  at  an 
advanced  value,  and  sell  if  they  could.  This  was  done  to  a 
great  extent,  but  no  actual  change  was  made  in  the  organi- 
zation of  the  Company.  *  *  *  * 

3.  The  acquisition  by  the  Puget's  Sound  Company  of  their 
lands  is  fully  explained,  and  the  amount  of  purchase  money 
paid  therefor,  and  the  amount  of  money  paid  for  improve- 
ments thereon,  is  given. 

4.  I  could  not  ascertain  anything  about  the  amount  of 
money  paid  on  the  purchase  of  Fort  Hall. 

5.  ^or  could  I  ascertain  anything  as  to  the  amount  paid 
by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  for  original  purchases,  or  for 
permanent  improvements  thereon. 

6.  The  laborer  question  I  have  explained.  As  the  witness 
suggests  that  the  books  of  the  Company  would  show  how 
much  profit  the  Company  made  upon  the  materials  with 
which  the  laborers  were  paid  their  wages,  I  left  it  for  your 
discretion  to  demand  the  extracts  from  the  books. 

7.  Upon  the  question  of  profits,  the  abstract  which  the 
claimants  annex  is  the  best  information  that  they  could  give. 
The  aged  accountant  would  only  show  me  how  the  accounts 
were  kept  in  general. 

Trusting  you  will  rest  assured  that  I  did  the  best  I  could 
in  the  premises, 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  great  respect, 
Your  obedient  servant, 

C.  A.  Seward. 


M 


w 


f 


L 


■ji'iTBTfUl 


m 


msi.mmtmuk  #ir>t«iiitt-. 


iiti  >ii   I     iiimiiiii  1^ 


BRITISH  AND  AMERICAN  JOINT  COMMISSION 


Oir  TBI 


HUDSON'S  BAY  AND  PUGET'S  SOUND  AGRICUL- 
TURAL  COMPANIES  CLAIMS. 


i 


In  the  matter  of  the  Clam  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  and 
Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company  vs.  the  United  States 
of  America. 

Hudson's  Bay  House,  September  3, 1866. 
Depoftitions  of  witnesses  taken  on  behalf  of  the  United 
States  under  and  pursuant  to  the  annexed  stipulation. 

Tss'iiMONT  OF  Edward  Roberts. 

i,  Edward  Hoberts,  accountant  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Com- 
pany in  London,  do  depose  and  say : 

I  have  been  such  accountant  for  forty  or  fifty  years,  and 
as  such  accountant,  have  a  knowledge  of  the  books  and  ac- 
counts of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company.  There  is  no  one  in 
this  country  that  knows  more  of  the  accounts  of  the  Com- 
pany than  I  do. 

The  two  Companies  above  named  have  mutual  transac- 
tions. If  the  Puget's  Sound  Company  wish  goods,  they  ap- 
ply to  our  Company  for  them. 

None  of  the  profits  of  the  Puget's  Sound  Company  come 
to  the  possession  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company. 

The  Puget's  Sound  Company  are  considerable  debtors  to 
the  Hudson's  Bay  Company ;  I  think  about  twenty-five  thou- 
sand pounds.  This  arose  from  supplying  the  Puget's  Sound 
Company  with  goods. 


14 


' 


I  know  of  no  arrangement  whereby  the  Puget's  Sonnd 
Company,  if  they  recover  anything  against  the  United  States, 
are  to  discharge  therefrom  their  indebtedness  to  the  Hud- 
son's Bay  Company. 

The  accounts  of  the  Puget's  Sound  Company  are  kept  in 
London  by  Mr.  Armit.  Mr.  Armit  is  not  compensated  by 
the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  for  the  work  done  for  the  Pu- 
get's Sound  Company.  He  is  also  employed  by  the  Hud- 
son's Bay  Company.  The  accounts  of  the  two  Companies 
are  distinct.  I  do  not  know  if  the  Puget's  Sound  Company 
is  in  the  receipt  of  an  annual  income. 

It  is  a  long  time  since  the  Puget's  Sound  Company  made 
any  payment  to  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company. 

The  Hudson's  Bay  Company  have  an  interest  as  purchaser 
of  shares  in  the  Puget's  Sound  Company  to  one  thousand 
three  hundred  and  eighty-six  shares,  at  par  one  hundred 
pounds  each,  upon  which  was  paid  ten  pounds  each. 

The  Hudson's  Bay  Company  has  derived  no  dividend  or 
income  from  these  one  thousand  three  hundred  and  eighty- 
six  shares.     These  one  thousand  three  hundred  and  eighty-six 
shares  were  purchased  at  different  dates,  from  September,  1 863. 
^  I  think  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company's  charter  is  dated  1670. 

I  know,  generally,  the  names  of  the  posts  owned  by  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company,  and  mentioned  in  cheir  memorial 
in  this  matter. 

I  do  not  know  of  any  conveyance  by  the  Crown  of  Great 
Britain  to  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  of  any  of  the  posts 
mentioned  in  the  memorial. 

I  do  not  know  of  any  conveyance  or  deed  from  the  Crown 
to  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  of  any  of  these  posts. 

I  have  read  the  printed  memorial  of  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company. 

I  do  not  know  by  whom  that  memorial  was  prepared. 

I  do  not  know  by  whom  the  table  of  values,  stated  in  the 
memorial,  was  prepared. 

The  books  of  the  Company  do  not  show  the  original  cost 
of  the  realty  or  of  the  improvements  therein  specified  in  the 
memorial.    No  account  was  kept  here  of  the  amounts  paid 


mmum 


uBta* 


mmrimtltitt 


—UK.!!  ■•<fc'^  MO "  <»KMK«»et..  tmtfi 


.1 


16 

out  for  improvement  in  America  npon  the  property  of  the 
Company. 

If,  for  illustration,  six  thoasand  pounds  had  been  paid  for 
improvements  at  Fort  Vancouver,  no  entry  of  that  sum 
would  appear  in  the  books  of  the  Company  here. 

An  account  might  have  been  kept  at  the  post  of  the  ex- 
pense. 

There  were  no  books  of  account  kept  anywhere  showing 
the  details  of  the  expenses  at  the  various  posts. 

Prior  to  1846,  no  accounts  were  rendered  to  the  Company 
shewing  the  details  of  the  expenditure  for  improvements  at 
the  various  posts  mentioned  in  the  memorial. 

All  the  accounts  of  the  various  posts  were  aggregated  at 
Fort  Vancouver. 

The  business  was  divided  into  departments ;  the  posts  men- 
tioned in  the  memorial  were  in  the  Columbia  department. 

There  are  no  accounts  with  the  Company  here  shewing 
the  amount  paid  out  in  that  Department  for  permanent  im- 
provements at  any  of  the  posts  therein. 

I  do  not  know  from  what  source  the  values  of  the  posts 
stated  in  the  memorial  were  arrived  at.  We  have  nothing 
in  this  country  to  verify  the  accuracy  or  truthfulness  of  the 
alleged  values.  I  do  not  know  where  one  could  go  to  find 
out  if  the  values  are  real  or  fictitious. 

I  think  Mr.  Dugald  MacTavish,  of  Victoria,  and  William 
Frazer  Tolmie,  also  of  Victoria,  could  give  information  as 
to  the  actual  value  of  the  improvements  at  the  various  posts. 
I  think  so  because  these  gentlemen  have  been  the  longest 
connected  with  the  Company,  and  have  been  upon  the  spot. 

The  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  prior  to  1846,  procured  their 
laborers  from  the  York  Factory,  Hudson's  Bay ;  they  were 
sent  across  the  mountains.  A  number  of  the  laborers  were 
Canadians,  and  in  some  instances.  Sandwich  Islanders. 

The  wages  that  were  paid  laborers  varied  from  seventeen 
pounds  to  thirty  pounds  per  annum,  excluding  rations.  The 
wages  were  paid  part  in  money,  and  part  in  goods.  The 
amount  of  money  and  of  goods  paid  varied. 

I  should  say  the  goods  were  transferred  in  the  payment  of 


i  vf^r^^-^Mipf.ym^'' 


I 


te 

the  wages  at  an  advance  upon  their  actual  cost  to  the  Com- 
pany. 

The  books  do  not  show  how  much  profit  was  made  by  the 
Company  upon  goods  issued  in  payment  of  wages. 

Indirectly,  through  the  York  Factory,  the  Company  pro- 
cured laborers  from  Scotland ;  they  were  procured  upon  con- 
tracted wages ;  I  cannot  tell  how  many  were  so  procured.  I 
think  the  laborers  were  engaged  for  five  years,  with  option 
of  renewal. 

The  books  would  show  the  number  of  Scottish  emigrants 
employed  from  time  to  time,  and  at  the  posts  mentioned  in 
the  memorial,  and  also  the  wages  paid  such  emigrants. 

After  1846,  the  Company  employed  such  emigrants  till 
1861  in  the  Territory. 

The  accounts  do  not  show  whether  the  improvements  at 
the  posts  were  paid  for  in  money  or  in  goods. 

I  think  the  seven  thousand  pounds  mentioned  in  the  me- 
morial of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  prior  to  1846,  is  con- 
siderably less  than  the  amount  actually  received,  as  the  ac- 
counts show. 

I  have  no  personal  knowledge  from  the  b^  oks  of  what  the 
Company  paid  for  Fort  Hall.  A  search  t  :;ht  disclose  the 
fact. 

From  1839  to  1848,  summary  accounts  of  each  of  the 
posts  were  rendered  to  the  Company  here.  From  1848  to 
1861,  account-books  showing  each  of  the  posts  were  re- 
ceived here,  with  the  exception  of  the  years  1847  and  1848. 
The  entire  accounts  were  rendered  to  York  Factory. 

I  produce  the  account  book  rendered  for  the  Columbia  de- 
partment for  the  year  1848.  I  have  similar  ones  for  the  sub- 
sequent years.  These  accounts  are  from  the  various  posts 
mentioned  in  the  memorial,  and  they  show  the  debit  and 
credit  account  for  the  year  of  each  of  the  said  posts  for  which 
the  account  is  rendered.  They  do  not  show  the  amount  ex- 
pended for  the  original  cost  of  either  the  real  estate  or  the 
improvements  thereon. 

The  first  debit  entry  being  under  date  June,  1843,  "  Fort 
Vancouver  depot,  to   Columbia  district,  for  Inventory, 


usuimmmm 


mtmm 


MMU 


.i'Va» 


IT 

£45,859  8  6 ;  to  Oatfit,  1848,  prodaoe  and  bo  forth  trans- 
ferred, i'5,566  15  11 ;"  those  entries  mean  th&  halance  of 
goods  remaining  on  hand,  at  the  given  date  from  the  outfit, 
made  to  the  post  the  preceding  years.  Each  account  against 
the  various  posts  commences  with  similar  entries. 

A  search  has  been  made  in  the  be  jks  for  the  cost  of  Fort 
Hall,  but  no  entry  of  the  same  can  be  found. 

I  annex  a  copy  from  the  entry  of  the  books  in  relation  to 
Fort  Colvile ;  similar  entries  are  to  be  found  in  relation  to 
the  other  posts  mentioned  in  the  memorial. 

Edward  Roberta. 

Sworn  by  the  above-named  Edward  Koberts,  before  me, 
this  third  day  of  September,  1866. 

Before  me,    Salem  C.  Harris, 
Notary  IhibliCy  24  Hoyal  Exchange^  London. 


(Notartal) 
1    Seal.    ; 


C.  A.  Seward  for  the  United  States,  J.  Denton  for  the 
Companies,  waive  a  Crocid-examination. 


Testimony  of  Mr.  William  Armit. 

Mr.  William  Armit,  registrar  of  shares  of  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company,  and  accountant  of  the  Puget's  Sound  Com- 
pany deposed,  as  follows : 

I  have  been  connected  with  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company 
five  years,  and  better  than  four  years  with  the  Puget's  Sound 
Company. 

I  know  of  no  change  in  the  organization  of  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company. 

There  has  been  a  change  in  the  amount  of  the  capital 
stock  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company. 

The  original  amount  of  stock,  when  I  first  hecame  con- 
nected with  the  Company,  was  ^6500,000.    This  was  not 
divided  into  shares,  but  into  stock,  which  sold  for  so  much 
per  cent,  above  the  original  capital. 
2B 


'■  y-^Mmretu^tif^^ 


18 


In  July,  1868,  the  change  in  stock  took  place  to  which  I 
alluded.    It  was  this : 

A  number  of  gentlemen  agreed  to  purchase  the  stock  at 
a  higher  price  from  the  stockholders  than  it  stood  in  the 
market. 

They  purchased  £497,625  stock  of  the  original  £500,000, 
at  jCSOO  per  cent.,  making  £1,500,000  upon  the  original 
capital,  which  was  then,  at  a  meeting  of  stockholders,  con- 
verted into  shares  of  £20  each,  and  the  capital  extended 
from  half  a  million  sterling  to  two  millions ;  the  new  stock 
was  then  sold  in  the  open  market.  A  change  took  place  in 
the  direction  of  the  Company  at  that  time. 

I  do  not  know  that  any  special  inventory  of  the  value  of 
the  property  of  the  Company  was  made  by  its  direction  at 
the  time  of  the  increase  of  the  stock. 

The  gentlemen  to  whom  I  have  alluded  had  access  to  the 
books,  and  conferred  with  the  directors. 

There  was  a  prospectus  issued  at  the  time  of  change 
alluded  to.    I  produce  and  annex  a  copy  to  my  deposition. 

I  do  not  know  what  assets  were  included  in  the  paragraph 
numbered  one  in  the  prospectus.  Such  paragraph  was  sup- 
posed to  include  all  the  property  of  the  Company,  except  as 
therein  excepted.  This  prospectus  was  issued  about  the 
8th  or  9th  July,  1863,  being  about  three  weeks  before  the 
knowledge  of  the  convention  came  to  the  Company,  which 
was  on  the  27th  day  of  July,  1863, 

The  gentlemen  to  whom  I  have  alluded  were  connected 
with  the  International  Finance  Society  named  in  the  pros- 
pectus, and  acted  in  its  behalf. 

I  do  not  know  how  the  sum  mentioned  in  paragraph  one 
was  arrived  at,  nor  any  of  the  details  of  which  it  is  composed. 

There  has  been  no  change  in  the  legal  constitution  of  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company  to  my  knowledge. 

The  relationship  of  mutual  traders  exists  between  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company  and  the  Puget's  Sound  Company. 

This  was  an  interchange  of  goods  and  produce  between 
the  posts  in  America,  the  accounts  for  which  were  ultimately 
adjusted  in  London. 


vir 


jh**i 


19 

In  such  accounts  the  Puget's  Sound  Company  became  the 
debtor  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  to  the  amount  of 
about  £25,000,  as  stated  by  Mr.  Roberts.  This  indebtedness 
commenced  in  1849,  and  has  been  from  that  time  increasing. 
The  capital  of  the  Puget's  Sound  Company  is  £18,160,  as  at 
present  paid  up,  there  being  1,816  shares,  upon  which  £10 
has  been  paid ;  but  shares  have  been  sold  at  £20  each.  The 
shares  are  nominally  £100  each.  The  present  market  value 
is  £10  per  share. 

I  annex  a  prospectus  of  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural 
Company. 

The  highest  amount  of  dividend  paid  in  one  year  by  the 
Company  was  £10  pc  cent.  This  was  in  1848, 1850, 1851, 
1862,  and  1853.  The  last  dividend  was  in  1854,  and  it  was 
£6  per  cent. 

I  produce  and  annex  a  copy  and  minute  from  the  books 
of  the  Company,  showing  the  manner  in  which  the  Com- 
pany acquired  possession  of  the  land  mentioned  in  the 
memorial  from  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company.  There  is  in 
the  books  of  the  Company  an  entry  of  £750  paid  to  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company  for  the  property  at  Cowlitz,  but 
whether  this  was  for  the  real  estate  or  improvements  or 
stock  in  hand,  the  books  do  not  state.  There  is  no  entry 
of  any  sum  paid  for  the  land  at  Nisqually. 

I  annex  to  my  deposition  an  extract,  showing  the  entries 
on  the  books  of  the  Company  for  expenditures  at  the  two 
stations  I  have  just  mentioned. 

The  amount  of  inventory  at  Cowlitz  Farm  on  the  31st 
May,  1846,  was  £3,614  14  6,  and  at  Nisqually,  at  the  same 
date,  £5,116  2  7,  both  of  which  consisted  of  live-stock  and 
country  produce. 

There  are  no  books  here  that  will  show  the  cost  of  im- 
provements upon  those  two  tracts  of  land. 

I  annex  statements  of  profit  and  loss  of  the  business  at 
Nisqually  and  Cowlitz  Farms,  from  1846  to  1854,  as  shown 
by  the  books  kept  in  London. 

W.  Armit. 


20 

Sworn  by  the  above-named  "William  Armit,  this  third  of 
September,  1866. 

/Notarial)  Before  me,    Salem  C.  Harris 

t  Seal.   J  Notary  Public,  24  Boyal  Exchange,  London. 


C.  A.  Seward, 

For  the  United  States. 
J.  Denton, 

For  the  Companies. 


Cross  •Examined. 


Prospectus. 

THE  INTERNATIONAL  FINANCIAL  SOCIETY, 

(limited) 

Are  prepared  to  receive  subscriptions  for  the  issue  at  par  of 
Capital  Stock  in  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  incorporated 
by  Royal  Charter,  1670. 

The  stock  will  be  issued  in  certificates  of  £20  each,  and 
the  installments  will  be  payable  as  follows : 

£1  being  5  per  cent,  on  application,  to  be  returned  in  the 
event  of  no  allotment  being  made. 

4  being  20  per  cent,  on  allotment, 

5  «      25  "      «      ♦*      Ist.  Sept.  1863, 
5    "      25  «      "      «      2d  Nov.  1863, 
5    u      25  "      "      "      Ist.  Jan.  1864. 


£20 


with  an  option  of  pre-payment  in  full  on  allotment,  or  on 
either  of  the  dayp  fixed  for  payment '  f  the  installments,  un- 
der discount,  at  the  rate  of  four  per  cent,  per  annum. 

The  capital  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  has  been  duly 
fixed  at  £2,000,000,  of  which  amount  the  International  Fi- 
nancial Society,  limited,  have  obtained,  and  are  prepared  to 
offer  to  the  public,  £1,930,000.    The  subscribers  will  be  en- 


yi 


21 

titled  to  an  interest  corresponding  to  the  amount  of  their 
subscription  in 

1.  The  assets  (exclusive  of  Nos.  2  and  8)  of  the  Hudson's 

Bay  Company  recently  and  specially  valued  by  com- 
petent valuers  at  £1,023,569. 

2.  The  landed  territory  of  the   Company,  held  under 

their  Charter,  and  which  extends  over  an  estimated 
area  of  more  than  1,400,000  square  miles,  or  up- 
wards of  896,000,000  acres. 

3.  A  cash  balance  of  £370,000. 

The  present  net  income,  available  for  dividend  amongst 
stockholders  of  the  Company,  secures  a  minimum  interest, 
exceeding  four  per  cent.,  on  the  above  £2,000,000. 

The  Directors  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  are  as  under : 
The  Right  Honorable  Sir  EdmundUead,  Bart.,  K.  C.  B. 

(late  Governor  General  of  Canada)  Governor. 
Curtis  Miranda  Lampson,  Esq.,  (C.  M.  Lampson  &  Co.) 

Deputy  Governor. 
Eden  Colvile,  Esq.,  Hudson's  Bay  House,  Fenchurch 

street. 
George  Lyall,  Esq.,  (M.  P.,  Headley  Park,)  Surrey. 
Daniel  Meinertzhagen,E8q.,'(F.  Huth  &  Co.) 
James  Stewart  Hodgson,  Esq.,  (Finlay,  Hodgson  &  Co.) 
John  Henry  William  Schroder,  Esq.,  (J.  H.  Schroder  & 

Co.) 
Richard  Potter,  Esq,  Standish  House,  Gloucestershire. 

The  Hudson's  Bay  Company  were  incorporated  under  a 
Royal  Charter,  by  King  Charles  H.,  in  1670,  by  the  name  of 
"  The  Governor  and  Company  of  Adventurers  of  England, 
trading  into  Hudson's  Bay;"  and  by  the  Charter,  a  vast  tract 
of  territory  was  vested  in  the  Company,  together  with  the 
sole  right  of  trade  and  commerce,  and  all  '*  mines  royal,"  as 
well  then  discovered  as  not  discovered,  within  the  said  Ter- 
ritory. 

The  operations  of  the  Company,  which,  with  slight  excep- 
tion, have  been  hitherto  exclusively  of  a  trading  character, 
have  been  prosecuted  from  the  date  of  the  Charter  to  the 
present  day. 


:    W'"'*^ 


22 


It  has  become  evident  that  the  time  has  arrived  when  those 
operations  must  be  extended,  and  the  immense  resources  of 
the  Company's  territory,  lying  as  it  does  between  Canada 
and  British  Columbia,  should  be  developed,  in  accordance 
with  the  industrial  spirit  of  the  age  and  the  rapid  advance- 
ment which  colonization  has  made  in  the  countries  acljacent 
to  the  Hudson's  Bay  territories. 

The  average  net  annual  profits  of  the  Company,  after  set- 
ting aside  40  per  cent,  of  them  as  remuneration  to  the  factors 
and  servants  at  the  Company's  posts  and  stations,  for  the  ten 
years,  ending  the  Slst  of  May,  1862,  amount  to  ^£81,000,  or 
upwards  of  four  per  cent,  on  the  present  nominal  capital  of 
£2,000,000.  A  portion  only  of  this  income  has  been  distrib- 
uted as  dividend,  while  the  remainder  is  represented  in  the 
assets  and  balances.  The  assets  of  the  Company  in  which 
these  subscribers  will' be  entitled  to  an  interest  correspond- 
ing to  the  amount  of  their  subscription  will  consist  of  goods 
in  the  interior,  on  shipboard,  and  other  stock  in  trade, 
including  shipping,  business  premises,  and  other  buildings 
necessary  for  carrying  on  the  fur  trade,  in  addition  to 
which  there  will  be  funds  immediately  available  for  the  pro- 
posed extended  operations  of  the  Company,  derived  partly 
from  the  cash  balance  of  the'  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  and 
partly  from  the  new  issue  of  stock,  amounting  in  the  whole 
to  a  sum  of  not  less  than  £370,000. 

The  Company's  territory  embraces  an  estimated  area  of 
more  than  1,400,000  square  miles,  or  896,000,000  acres,  of 
which  a  large  area,  on  the  southern  frontier,  is  well 
adapted  for  European  colonization.  The  soil  of  this  por- 
tion of  the  territory  is  fertile,  producing,  in  abundance, 
wheat,  and  other  cereal  crops,  and  is  capable  of  sustain- 
ing a  numerous  population.  It  contains  1,400  miles  of  nav- 
igable lakes  and  rivers,  running,  for  the  greater  part,  east 
and  west,  which  constitute  an  important  feature  in  plans 
for  establishing  the  means  of  communication  between  the 
Atlantic  and  Pacific  oceans,  across  the  continent  of  British 
North  America,  as  well  as  for  immediate  settlement  in  the 
intervening  country.  The  territory  is,  moreover,  rich  in 
mineral  wealth,  including  coal,  lead,  and  iron. 


»ii 


•«Mi 


23 

In  addition  to  its  chartered  territory,  the  Company  pos- 
sesses the  following  valuable  landed  property :  several  plots 
of  land  in  British  Columbia,  occupying  most  favorable  sites 
at  the  months  of  rivers,  the  titles  to  which  have  been  con- 
firmed by  her  Majesty's  Government,  farms,  building-sites 
in  Vancouver  Island,  and  in  Canada,  ten  square  miles  at 
Lacloche,  on  Lake  Huron,  and  tracts  of  land  at  fourteen 
other  places. 

The  trading  operations  of  the  Company  are  chiefly  carried 
on  in  the  fur-bearing,  and  northern  portion  of  the  territory, 
where  the  climate  is  too  severe  for  European  colonization. 
These  trading  operations  will  be  actively  continued,  and  as 
far  as  possible,  extended,  whilst  the  management  will  be  ju- 
diciously economized. 

Consistently  with  these  objects,  the  outlying  estates  and 
valuable  farms  will  be  realized  where  the  land  is  not  re- 
quired for  the  use  of  the  Company.  The  southern  district 
will  be  opened  to  European  colonization,  under  a  liberal  and 
systematic  scheme  of  land  settlement.  Possessing  a  staff  of 
factors  and  officers,  who  are  distributed  in  small  centres  of 
civilization  over  the  territory,  the  Company  can,  without 
creating  new  and  costly  establishments,  inaugurate  the  new 
policy  of  colonization,  and  at  the  same  time  dispose  of  mining 
grants. 

"With  the  view  of  providing  the  means  of  telegraphic  and 
postal  communication  between  Canada  and  British  Colum- 
bia, across  the  Company's  territory,  and  thereby  of  connect- 
ing the  Atlantic  and  Pacific  oceans  by  an  exclusively  British 
route,  negotiations  have  been  pending  for  some  time  past 
between  certain  parties  and  her  Majesty's  Government  and 
the  representatives  of  the  Government  of  Canada,  and  pre- 
liminary arrangements  for  the  accomplishment  of  these  ob- 
jects have  been  made  through  Her  Majesty's  Government, 
(subject  to  the  final  sanction  of  the  Colonies)  based  upon  a 
five  per  cent,  guarantee  from  the  Government  of  Canada, 
British  Columbia,  and  Vancouver  Island.  In  further  aid 
of  these  imperial  objects,  her  Majesty's  Government  have 
signified  their  intention  to  make  grants  of  laud  to  the  extent 


-— *s.*^^»*^^»^*^ 


It'itK^ 


24 

of  about  1,000,000  acres,  in  portions  of  the  Crown  territory, 
traversed  by  the  proposed  telegraphic  line. 

One  of  the  first  objects  of*  the  Company  will  be  to  exam- 
ine the  facilities  and  consider  the  best  means  for  carrying 
out  this  most  important  work,  and  there  can  be  little  doubt 
that  it  will  be  duccessfuUy  executed  either  by  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company  itself,  or  with  their  aid  and  sanction. 

For  this,  as  well  as  for  the  other  proposed  objects,  Mr. 
Edward  Watkin,  who  is  now  in  Canada,  will  be  commis- 
sioned, with  other  gentlemen  specially  qualified  for  the  duty, 
to  visit  the  Red  river  and  southern  districts,  to  consult  the 
officers  of  the  Company  there,  and  to  report  as  to  the  best 
and  safest  means  of  giving  eft'ect  to  the  contemplated  oper- 
ations. 

Applications  for  allotments  of  certificates  of  Stock  of  £20 
each,  to  be  made  to  the  International  Financial  Society,  lim- 
ited, at  their  offices,  54,  Old  Broad  Street,  E.  C. 

A  preference  in  allotment  will  be  given  to  parties  hitherto 
holders  of  stock  in  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  and  to  the 
shareholders  in  the  International  F^^ancial  Society,  limited. 

No  applications  will  be  received  after  Wednesday,  8th 
July,  at  12  o'clock. 


">}' 


No. HUDSON'S  BAY  COMPANY. 

FORM   OF  APPLICATCON   FOR  ALLOTMENTS   OF    STOCK. 

To  the  Directors  of  the  International  Financial  Society,  limited: 

Gentlemen  :  I  request  yon  to  allot  me 

certificates  of  £20  each  of  the  stock  in  the  "  Company  of 
Adventurers  of  England  trading  into  Hudson's  Bay;"  and  I 
hereby  agree  to  become  a  member  of  that  Company,  subject 
to  its  rules  and  regulations,  and  to  accept  such  stock,  or  any 
less  amounts  that  may  be  allotted  to  me. 

I  am,  gentlemen,  your  obedient  servant. 

Name  in  full, 

Address  in  full, 

Date, '  .. 


-■•«.«i,*,»W»'***»*"-"^*-*V»«»  ■*-  ♦»' 


26 

N.  B.— If  the  applicant  has  hitherto  been  a  holder  of 
Hudson's  Bay  stock,  or  is  a  proprietor  of  shares  in  the  Inter- 
national Financial  Society,  limited,  the  fact  should  be  stated, 
together  with  memorandum  of  the  amount  of  the  holding. 


HUDSON'S  BAY  COMPANY. 

No. 

Bankers'  receipt  for  deposit  on  Application  for  Allotments  of 

Stock. 

Received  the day  of 1863,  of 

on  account  of  the  Directors  of  the  International  Financial 

Society,  limited,  the  sum  of  £ ,  being  the  first 

instalment  made  in  accordance  with  the  terms  of  the  pro- 
spectus on  an  application  for  an  allotment  of -..-  cer- 
tificates of  $20  each  in  the  above  undertaking. 

For  Messrs.  Glyn,  Mills  &  Co. 
£ 


The  soil  and  climate  of  the  country  on  the  Columbia 
river,  particularly  the  district  situated  between  the  head- 
waters of  the  Cowlitz  river,  which  falls  into  the  Columbia 
river,  about  fifty  miles  from  the  Pacific  and  Puget's  Sound, 
being  considered  highly  favorable  for  the  rearing  of  flocks 
and  herds,  with  a  view  to  the  production  of  wool,  hides,  and 
tallow,  and  also  for  the  cultivation  of  other  agricultural  pro- 
duce. 

It  is  proposed — 

1.  That  an  association  be  formed,  under  the  protection 
and  auspices  of  the  Governor  and  Company  of  Adventurers 
of  England  trading  into  Hudson's  Bay,  for  the  purposes  of 
rearing  flocks  and  herds,  with  a  view  to  the  production  of 
wool,  hides,  and  tallow,  and  for  the  cultivation  of  other  agri- 
cultural produce  on  the  west  side  of  the  Rocky  Mountains. 

2.  That  the   said   association  be  styled  "The  Puget's 


-.:u^i^.^ 


ukitt 


r 


V 


Sound  Agricultural  Company,"  and  shall  consist  of  persons 
who  shall  become  shareholders,  as  hereinafter  mentioned. 

8.  That  the  capital  stock  of  the  said  Association  shall  be 
je200,000,  which  shall  be  divided  in  2,000  shares  of  £100 
each  v'  - 

4:  That  a  deposit  of  £10  per  share  be  paid  on  sub- 
scription, and  that  the  calls  for  the  residue  to  be  hereafter 
made  shall  not  exceed  the  sum  of  £5  per  share  at  any  one 
time,  and  that  at  intervale  of  not  less  than  three  months. 

6.  That  the  non-payment  of  any  call  shall  incur  a  for- 
feiture of  the  shares  and  all  previous  deposits,  to  be  declared 
at  a  general  meeting  of  shareholders. 

6.  That  until  the  sovereignty  of  the  tract  of  country, 
which  in  the  first  instance  is  proposed  to  be  the  seat  of  the 
Company's  operations,  be  determined,  and  in  order  to  guard 
against  any  legal  difficulties  in  England,  the  manogement 
of  the  business,  including  all  purchases  and  sal^s  on  account 
of  the  Company,  and  the  contracting  on  behalf  of  the  Com- 
pany with  clerks  and  servants,  and  all  correspondence,  may 
be  exclusively  conducted  by,  and  shall  be  confided  to,  agents 
in  England  to  carry  on  the  same  in  their  names,  and  gener- 
ally in  all  matters,  to  act  as  agents  of  the  Puget's  Sound 
Agricultural  Company;  and  for  such  services  be  allowed 
the  usual  mercantile  commission. 

7.  That  no  person  shall  be  qualified  to  be  such  agent, 
unlebs  he  shall  at  the  time  of  his  appointment  bona  fide  hold, 
and  continue  to  hold,  and  be  possessed  of  at  least  twenty 
shares. 

8.  That  John  Henry  Pelly,  Andrew  Colvile,  and  George 
Simpson,  Esquires,  be  the  agents;  and  that  in  all  questions 
relating  to  the  conducting  of  the  business  of  the  said  Associ- 
ation, the  majority  of  the  said  agents  shall  be  conclusive. 

■  9.  That  in  case  of  the  death,  resignation,  or  disqualifi- 
cation of  any  one  or  more  of  the  said  Agents,  a  meeting  of 
the  proprietors  shall  be  called  in  London  in  manner  herein- 
after mentioned,  for  the  purpose  of  appointing  one  or  more 
agent  or  agents,  qualified  as  aforesaid,  to  fill  such  vacancy  or 
vacancies,  and  with  the  like  powers  and  authorities  as  the 


>n 


•I  -i . 


fc-.fc.*^******!.*.***"^**'-*'*' 


mSm 


27 

person  or  persons  so  dying,  having  resigned,  or  become  dis- 
qualified as  hereinbefore  mentioned. 

10.  That  a  general  meeting  of  the  proprietor* ''of  the 
Pugot'H  Sound  Agricultural  Company  be  held  in  London,  in 
the  montli  of  December,  in  the  year  1840,  and  also  within 
the  Haid  month  ot  December  in  every  succeeding  year,  of 
which  meetings,  fourteen  days'  notice  at  least  shall  be  given 
by  iidvcrtisement  in  two  or  more  of  the  public  daily  news- 
papers, published  in  the  city  of  London  or  county  of  Mid- 
dlcHCX,  at  which  meeting  the  said  agents  shall  produce  their 
accounts,  and  report  their  transactions  on  behalf  of  the  Com- 
pany for  the  past  year,  and  the  state  of  the  aifairs  of  the 
Company  generally ;  and  at  such  meetings,  the  agents  shall 
bo  an inially  elected,  (the  existing  agents  being  eligible  for 
reelection)  the  proprietors  to  vote  at  such  meetings  in  per- 
ion,  or  by  proxy  to  another  proprietor,  in  the  proportion  of 
one  vote  for  every  share,  respectively. 

11.  That  no  proprietor  shall  be  allowed  to  vote,  or  to  re- 
ceive any  dividend,  profit,  or  bonus,  or  exercise  any  other 
right  in  respect  of  any  share  he  may  hold,  until  he  shall  have 
paid  the  amount  of  any  call  made  on  him  in  respect  of  his 
said  share,  and  shall  have  executed  the  deed  of  settlement, 
or  other  instrument  which  shall  be  executed  by  the  proprie- 
tors in  respect  of  these  presents. 

12.  That  in  the  event  of  any  proprietor  being  at  any  time 
desirous  of  selling  or  disposing  of  his  or  her  share  or  shares, 
the  name  shall,  in  such  case,  be  oft'ered  to  the  agents  of  the 
said'Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company,  for  the  said 
Company,  and  in  case  the  said  agents  shall  decline  to  pur- 
chase the  same,  then  such  proprietor  shall  be  at  liberty  to 
80li  and  transfer  such  share  to  such  other  person  or  persons 
as  shall  be  approved  by  the  said  agents,  or  any  two  of  them. 

18.  That  no  sale,  transfer,  or  disposal  of  any  share  shall 
bo  made,  so  long  as  any  sum  of  money  shall  be  due  or  un- 
paid to  the  said  Company'  for,  or  on  account  of  any  call  or 
otherwise,  in  respect  of  such  share. 

14.  That  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company  shall 
purchase  from  the  said  governor  and  Company,  at  a  fair 


i  ,.-. 


' 


I 


28 

valuation,  to  be  made  in  the  usual  way,  or  on  such  other 
terms  as  may  be  agreed  upon,  sach  portion  of  their  stock  of 
sheep,  cattle,  and  horses,  and  such  implements  of  husbandry 
and  other  articles  as  the  said  Governor  and  Company  can 
dispense  with. 

15.  That  the  said  agents  be  ^empowered  to  appoint  man- 
agers, agents,  or  attorneys,  for  the  purpose  of  transacting 
the  business  of  the  said  Company  in  the  district  in  North 
America  aforesaid,  or  wherever  else  may  be  necessary,  and 
to  enter  into  engagements  with  such  managers,  agents,  or 
attorneys,  as  may  be  necessary  for  carrying  on  the  business, 
and  to  allow  them  such  salaries  or  other  consideration  for 
their  services  as  may  be  necessary  or  proper,  and  to  revoke 
such  appointments  or  engagements,  and  likewise  to  make 
agreements  with,  and  advances  to  persons  desirous  of  be- 
coming agriculturists :  Provided,  always,  that  the  principal 
direction  or  management  of  the  affairs  of  the  said  Company 
in  the  said  district,  be  under  the  superintendence  of  an  offi- 
cer attached  to,  and  interested  in  the  Fur  Trade  of  the  said 
Governor  and  Company. 

16.  That  the  Chief  Factor,  or  other  officer  who  may  be 
appointed  to  the  direction  or  chief  management  of  their 
afiairs  in  the  district  aforesaid  shall,  in  all  things  relating  to 
the  management  of  their  affairs,  be  subject  to  instructions, 
from  time  to  time,  to  be  issued  by  the  said  agents  in  London. 

17.  That  the  agents  shall,  on  behalf  of  the  Company,  give 

a  bond  of  & to  the  said  Governor  and  Company  of 

Hudsons'  Bay,  that  neither  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural 
Company,  nor  any  person  in  their  employ,  nor  by  them 
taken  into  the  district  aforesaid,  shall  in  any  way,  either 
directly  or  indirectly,  trade  in  furs  or  peltries  while  in 
the  employ  or  under  agreement  with  the  said  Puget's 
Sound  Agl-icultural  Company ;  and  also  that  they,  the  said 
agents,  shall  make  it  a  condition  in  every  agreement  to 
be  entered  into  by  them,  with  any  person  or  persons  to 
be  employed  by  them  in  the  district  aforesaid,  that  the 
said  agents  shall  be  at  liberty  at  any  time  to  dismiss 
them  from  the  service  of  the  said  Company,  and  remove 


■»   ^. 


if 


■■:ii-i;.v^.«J:;:-v.« 


K 


^ 


fl9 

them  from  the  said  district  to  wherever  such  persons  may 
have  been  originally  engaged ;  and  that  such  persons  shall, 
in  every  respect,  be  subject  to  the  like  conditions,  restric- 
tions, and  regulations  as  the  servants  of  the  Governor  and 
Company  now  are  under,  and  particularly  to  the  conditions 
contained  in  the  grant  from  the  Crown  under  which  the  said 
Governor  and  Company  are  entitled  to  the  exclusive  trade 
within  the  said  district. 

18.  That  whenever  the  Crown  of  Great  Britain  may  be- 
come possessed  of  the  sovereignty  of  any  part  of  the  district 
in  which  the  operations  of  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural 
Company  may  be  carried  on,  application  shall  be  made  to 
the  Crown  for  a  grant  of  land,  and  to  incorporate  said  Pu- 
get's Sound  Agricultural  Company. 

19.  That  a  proper  deed  of  settlement  shall  be  prepared 
under  the  superintendence  of  the  said  agents  in  such  form, 
and  containing  all  such  clauses,  covenants,  powers  and  stip- 
ulations, as  counsel  shall  advise,  for  properly  and  eftectually 
carrying  on  the  business  of  the  said  Company,  and  for  in- 
demnifying and  saving  harmless  the  agents  in  respect  of 
their  acting  in  the  management  and  conducting  of  the  said 
trade  as  aforesaid,  and  relating  thereto ;  and  that  the  same, 
or  a  counterpart  thereof,  shall  be  executed  by  the  several 
proprietors  for  the  time  being. 

20.  That  an  absolute  and  entire  dissolution  of  the  said 
Company  may  lawfully  take  place  and  be  made  with  the 
consent  and  approbation  of  three-fourths  at  least  of  the  pro- 
prietors, to  be  testified  by  some  writing  signed  by  them  or 
their  attorneys  or  proxies,  and  thereupon  the  affairs  of  the 
said  Company  shall,  with  all  convenient  speed  be  wound  up, 
and  after  payment  of  all  claims  on  the  said  Company,  the 
balance  shall  be  divided  among  the  persons  who  shall  be  then 
proprietors,  in  proportion  to  the  amount  of  their  respective 
shares. 


We  approve  the  above  proposals  and  regulations,  and 
mutually  agree,  upon  request,  to  execute  such  deed  or  deeds 


80 

for  carrying  the  same  into  effect  as  therein  mentioned;  and 
in  tho  meantime  to  perform  and  abide  by  the  same  on  our 
respective  parts. 


V 


•I 


Extract  from  Minute  Book  of  the  Piiget^a  Sound  Agricultural 
Company,  dated  London,  Friilay,  Ist  March,  1839.  ' 

At  a  meeting :  Present,  J.  H.  Pelly,  Andrew  Colvile,  and 
Qeorgo  Simpson,  Esquires. 

Mr.  Pelly  reported  that  he  had,  on  the  27th  «lt»  >,  sub- 
mitted the  prospectus  to  the  committee  of  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company,  who  considered  favorably  of  it  aitentions, 
and  had  passed  the  following  resolutions  wif  regard  to  the 
same: 

"  A  prospectus  for  the  formation  of  an  association  to  be 
styled  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company,  having  for 
its  object  the  rearing  of  flocks  and  herds  on  an  extensive 
scale,  with  a  view  to  the  production  of  wool,  hides,  and 
tallow,  for  the  British  market,  from  a  district  of  country 
situated  to  the  northward  of  the  Columbia  river,  having 
been  submitted  for  our  consideration,  and  being  favorably 
considered  and  entertained  by  us. 

"  And  being  of  opinion  that  a  valuable  branch  of  business 
may  arise  from  the  exertions  of  this  association,  and  that  it 
may  become  instrumental  in  improving  the  condition  of  the 
native  Indians  and  other  persons  inhabiting  that  remote 
country,  and  in  bringing  them  into  habits  of  industry  and 
civilization,  and  likewise  advantageous  to  the  Fur  Trade. 

"And  the  Governor  and  Committee  not  considering  it 
advisable  or  expedient  to  make  this  new  branch  of  business 
a  branch  of  Fur  'Irade,  yet  being  anxious  to  promote  the 
objects  contetiiplated  in  forming  the  said  association,  and  to 
afford  it  their  coi  Ji  -i  support,  it  is — 

"  Resolved,  Ist.  That  the  said  association  shall  have  permis- 
sion to  carry  on  their  contemplated  operations  as  detailed  in 
the  said  prospectus  in  the  country  therein  referred  to,  and 


^^Sii-J: 


91 

that  the  assiBtanco  and  support  required  from  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company  towards  carrying  into  effect  the  measures  set 
forth  in  the  said  prospectus  be  attbrded. 

"  Resolved,  2d.  That  the  services  of  Chief  Factor  Mc- 
Laughlin be  afforded  from  the  Fur  Trade  to  the  said  Com- 
pany, for  the  purpose  of  superintending  its  affairs  in  North 
America,  as  set  forth  in  the  11th  article  of  the  prospectus. 

"  Bt'solved,  8d.  That  such  portions  ot  the  stock  of  sheep 
and  cattle,  and  of  agricultural  implements,  &c.,  as  can  be 
conveniently  disposed  with  by  the  fur  trade  of  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company,  as  sot  forth  in  the  10th  article  of  the  said 
prospectus,  be  sold  to  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Com- 
pany as  may  be  determined  on  by  the  Governor  and  Council 
of  the  northern  department  of  Rupert's  Land." 


» ( 


•  ■> 


ii 


, 


82 

Bbitish  and  Amebioak  Joiitt  Coumissioh,  on  the  Hud 
This  18  the  exhibit  rc.'r-.dd  to  in  the  deposition  of  Edward  Boberts,  sworn  on 

'M,  BOTAL  EZOBAMOI,  ItONDOIT. 

Example  of  a  District  Account  of  the 
Dr.  Fort  Colvtlb 

1843  £.     ».   d 

June  1,  To  Columbia  District — 

Inventory  this  date 489    1  10 

To  Outfit  1842— 

Country  produce  &c.,  transferred 29  18    0 

1844 
Hay  31,  To  Sundry  Accounts : 

For  supplies  &c.,  viz : 

Fort  Vancouver  Depot £716  19    6 

Fort  Wancouver  Sale  Shop ^  9    1 

Snake  Party 

Fort  Nez  Peroes 31  10  11 

748  19    6 

To  Columbia  District — 

Servants' Wages £602  14    5 

Sundry  Credits 5  15  11 

C03  10    4 

To  Profit  and  Loss — 

Gain 2.344    7    0 


\ 


r. 

E 


i 


^W-i. 


(Example  of  a  District  Account  of  the 
Columbia  Department,) 


£4,220  16    8 


33 

sob's  Bat  and  Pcget's  Sourd  Agkicultueal  Compahieb. 
this  3d  day  of  September,  1866.    Before  me, 

Salem  C.  IIakub,  /.l-.'.—y  Fublie. 

Columbia  Department^  Outfit  1843. 
Outfit,  1843. 


Cr. 


1844  £     «.    d. 

May  31,  By  Columbia  Di.strict — 

Sales  to  Servants 135  18    7 

By  Sundry  Accounts : 

Sundries  for  Transfer  Book — 

New  Caledonia £81  11  2 

Thompson  s  River 63    6  6 

General  charges 115  13  4 

Snake  Party 12    7  3 

262  17  3 

By  Columbia  District — 

Inventory  this  date 402    9  11 

By  Outfit,  1844— 

Country  produce  (&c.,  transferred 68    6    9 

By  Columbia  District — 
Returns  of  Outfit,  viz  : 

132  Badger,  at  1«.  7<i 10    9  0 

183  black  Bear,  at  25«.  3rf 231    0  9 

102  brown      "        "71s 362    2  0 

107  grizzly      "        "  358.  M 189  18  6 

712  large  parchment  Beaver,  32s 1139    4  0 

333  small         "              "      15s.  M. .  260  17  0 

10  lbs.  coating              "       13s  ......  6  10  0 

51    "  Castorum            "      22s.  3d. .  56  14  9 

229  Fisher,  10s.  6d 120    4  6 

13  Foxes,  cross,  19s 12    7  0 

79       "      Red,  58. 64 2114  6 

2       "      Silver,  98s 9  16  0 

45  Lynx,  9s.  64. 21    7  6 

796  Marten,  10s.  44 411    5  4 

288  Mink,  2s.  34. 32    8  0 

7401  Muskrats,  64 187    5  6          ' 

"'*        ,        186  Land  Otter,  208 186    0  0 

22  Racoon,  28.  44 2  114 

48  Wolvenine,  5s.94.r 13  16  0 

275  Wolves,  58.  64..". 75  12  6 


3,351  [1]4  f 
£4,220  16  8 


8  B 


i 
I 


I 


84 


Extracts  from  Ledger  of  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Com- 
pany. 

(Ledger  settlements  abroad  page  4.) 

1842, 
March  14,  To  amount  invested  in  bringing  the 
Cowlitz  and  NisquaL^  Farms  into 
a  state  of  cultivation,  erection  of 
buildings  &c.,         -         -         £1,322    0    6 

1843, 
March  31,  To  amount  further  invested  in 
bringing  the  Cowlitz  and  Nis- 
qually  Farms  into  a  state  of 
cultivation,  erection  of  build- 
ings, &c.,         ....  1,285    2  10 


\ 


i  I 


'I 


85 


2  10 


r 


'i 
1 


Statement  of  Profit  and  Loss  on  the  tramactions  at  the  Paget' s 

Sound  Agricultural  Company's  Farm  at    Cowlitz,  Oreaon 

Territory,  as  shown  by  their  books  of  Accounts,  confirmed  at 

meetings  of  the  Shareholders. 


(Iiedger  aettlemeut  abroad  Page  9.) 


1844,  ^■'>"'- 

May  31.  Profiton  the  year  1843-44,  £179    8     1 
1846,  Profit  on  the  year  1844-45   -    797    7    7 

1846,  Profit  on  the  year  1845-46   -    351    411 

1847,  Profit  on  the  year  1846-47   -     129  16    3 

1848,  Loss  on  the  year  1847-48,  p.  10 

1849,  Loss  on  the  year  1848-49     - 

1850,  Profit  on  the  year  1849^50   -    738  12    9 

1851,  Loss  on  the  year  1850-51     - 

1852,  Loss  on  the  year  1851-52     - 

1853,  Profit  on  the  year  1852-53   -    392  H    l 

1854,  Loss  on  the  year  1853-54,  p.  37 

1855,  Loss  on  the  year  1854-55     - 

1856,  Loss  on  the  year  1855-66     - 


Lou. 


^850    3 
594  19 

397  17 
842    3 

233  18 
504  12 
867    1 


6 
6 

9 
1 


3 

2 

10 


^.tf 


36 

Statement  of  Profit  and  Loss  on  the  transactions  at  the  Puget's 
Sound  Agricultural  Company's  Farm  of  Nisqually,  Oregon 
Territory,  as  shown  by  their  books  of  accounts,  confirmed  at 
the  meeting  of  Shareholders.  . 

(lic'dger  anttlement  abroad  Page  11.) 


PBoriT. 

£ 

s,    d. 

May  31, 

1844,  Profit 

on 

the 

yearl843-44,     -      - 

596 

0    6 

% 

(( 

1845, 

(( 

(( 

"   1844-45,     -      - 

1,181 

17    1 

4 

^i 

1846, 

i( 

« 

«  1845-46,p.l2, - 

1,300 

8    2 

« 

1847, 

(( 

(( 

"  1846-47,     -     - 

1,944 

1    8 

{( 

1848, 

(( 

(( 

"  1847-48,     -     - 

644 

5    6 

(( 

1849, 

(t 

(( 

"  1848-49,     -     - 

1,858 

14    9 

(( 

1850 

« 

« 

"  1849-50,     -     - 

1,065 

5  11 

t 

« 

185  i. 

(( 

« 

"  1850-51,  p.  24, - 

2,021 

18    9 

1 

(( 

1852, 

(( 

(( 

"  1851-52,     -     - 

2,476 

18    6 

« 

1853, 

« 

(( 

"  1852-53,     -     - 

3,274 

3  10 

■ 

« 

1854, 

(( 

« 

<( 

"  1853-54,     -      - 

903 

3    4 

(( 

1855, 

(( 

(( 

(( 

"  1854-55,     -      - 

1,315 

19  11 

(( 

1856, 

Loss 

(( 

(( 

«  1855-56,  p.  25,- 

1,876  15    6 

\ 

British  and  American  Joint  Commission,  on  the  H.  B.  and 
P.  S.  A.  Co. 's  Claims. 
This  and  the  foregoing  five  exhibits  initiated  by  me  are  ex- 
"hibits  referred  to  in  the  «Ieposition  of  William  Armit,  sworn 
before  me  this  third  day  of  September,  1866. 

Salem  C,  Harris,  Notary  Public, 

24  Royal  Exchange,  London. 


57,  Coleman  Street,  London,  E.  C, 

Ath  September,  1866. 
Dear  Sir  :  We  have  the  pleasure  to  hand  you  enclosed 
the  two  papers  which  Mr.  Roberts  of  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company  has  made  out  since  you  left  yesterday,  and  which 
we  beg  may  accompany  the  more  formal  documents  which 
were  handed  to  you  by  the  notary  yesterday.  ^ 

We  are,  dear  sir,  yours  faithfully, 
A.  M.  Maynard,  Son  &  Co. 

M.  Clarence  A.  Seward. 


87 


17 

1 

8 

2 

1 

8 

5 

6 

14 

9 

5 

11 

18 

9 

18 

5 

3  10 

3 

4 

19  11 

15 

6 

66. 
osed 
Bay 
'hich 


;0. 


Os 


'Ji, 


•^ 


e 


e 

g 

a 


•8 
s 

o 


o 


i6 

^.                     i-(C0<S)C0«0(N03 

o> 

%5. 

■«*<  rH  in  O  O  lO  05 

CO 

a-S 

i. 

10                                             f— (              T— t   I— t   T— (    1— 1 

•-t 

S| 

M 

Tt*  t~  OO  05  ■*  Tt<  01 

—4 

0 

CO  lO  O  OT  ^  (M  CO 

o 

Ma 

'^                   r-._  t>  -^  eo_  00  ^_  tT 

o 

•*  o'  ctT  -St*"  lo'  eo"  ■*" 

(M" 

^  5) 

o 

2i 

r-t 

H® 

«l 

.               eo  CO      CO  lo  i>  CO 

r^ 

i^  lO  Ol  l>  iH  (N  Ttl 

00 

t-1  o 

i 

(O                                   rH  I-H                           rH 

eo  lO  05  -^  O  CD  O 

O 

lO  CO  lO  »C  IC  CD  05 

•«)< 

CD 

c+j                03  CD  CO  ic  >n  lO  CO 

in 

Is 

co'  co"  co"  co'  oi  CO  m" 

^' 

i  . 

^.                      TjtCOC^Ir-lt-r-lO 

<N 

Ie? 

TS                                                                   1-H              T— I 

S2 

lO  Tt(  CD  O  CO  •*  •>*< 

IN 

11 

h" 

CO                                   rH  1— (  rH           rH 

t^  <M  00  CD  t^  rH  t- 

7.^ 

Tt<  Tt<  t~  lO  IM  in  l- 

CO 

o 

C(J                   00  CD  00  o  in  O  M 

1-* 

V  —"  o"  o'  o"  o"  im" 

rH  rH  rH  rH  rH  t-H  T-H 

of 

00 

^                         1>  rHOO  rH  rH         -^f 
^                             rH                rH 

CO 

CO  w  rH  eo  00       00 

00 

CQ                         r^          r^          T^ 

rH 

o1 

hi 

03  in  i^  CO  in      CO 

t> 

"  « 

CJ  t^  03   rH  Q           lO 
C^^                       inrH         (mS         CD 

!>. 

is 

CD 

rHr-T       <N 

in 

<^^ 

.(MOT*<t^rHC0l0rHrH03 

t-rH 

00 

fc" 

'e      ^ 

r^ 

> 

.COCOt~OOt-rHOi>OCO 

00  in 

(N 

o 

is 

*>                                    rH  rH  rH  rH 

3 

OOt~eOOC030300r-lCOO 

CO  03 

'^ 

i2 

0-H0303in(N-H-rt<t^rH 

in  CO 

CO 

t4jTPCOCOTj<OOOincOrHl>. 

t-CO 

o 

** 

•^"  — "  o"  '*<■  oo"  co"  «>  cc  -^  ^ 

t~"iC 

o* 

s  . 

<N(MC^IC^rH(MrH(NlM<N 

IM  r-t 

t-l 

1 

(N 

(N 

,>;  * . '                       ■<*<  t^  O 

rH     • 

, 

r 

^          * 

<-l 

O  <N  CO 

lO 

"2 

i 

«o 

§ 

CD  CO  t^ 

03     • 

1 

s 

in  CO  ■* 

CO 

<a 

1(1                              in  in  in 

CO 

fi 

eo'cc'in" 

!> 

I-H 

1 

1 
i 

1 
t 
t 

§ 

t»00a3OrH(NC0->!t(inC0 

CO  CO  CO  ^  ^  "'^  ^  ^  ^  ^^ 

' 

citi.o6*>OrHcJieo4iin 

00 

s 

J3 

cococoeO"*<Tt<Tt<Tti'*<Tri 

-4J 

S 

oooocooooooooooocooo 

vi 

g 

-M 

o 

>^ 

PL, 

u    & 


aeo   I  00  rH 


«3 


PhA 


I- 


.  ««-<».-il**;*tlV  W«  V«*<-'dU>i*K-«^  #»*-»ii*-^''**»«*' »•-***«*«»« - 


•  •4-»»  •>«*''>''.0«'.'MM-  " 


^ 


r 


«0 


-« 


■§> 


o 


qa 


t  ^ 


60 


« 


M 


«fi 


m 


s    w 


WP 


^^ 


o  o 

2-3 


o ," 


a  s 


'3     'H  B 

rr!  o 


flo 


5       -S 


3-fl 


60 


-"    .  o 
<u  J  o 


a 


^.2  a  p. 

H    «    O  ^ 


o  ':2  K 


»  0)  ea  f.. 


^-c-^ 


4)  a::::  >h 


6C 

a  d  ' 


38 


0»N0  i-lt~^  00  r-tCO  05  rH  O  O  00  O  O 
»-t  i-H 

lC-«*<0  t-«0  lO  O05  O  W  Ot)<  lOIOr~(MO 

rHrH  rHi-Hl— trHl-Hi— t  r~* 

OC0'*<'*<i-l03lM'MC000.-ll(5  OOOIOCOO 

1-H  (M_i-<_C<0  lO  Oi  <»  CO '0_l--0_"<)<  00^.'"'.       t^ 

eO(N"lO'M"  I-H        M         I-H  i-TrHr-i' 


;h 


°'2 


■^ 


S  S-o 


"3    S 


• 

:   :   :  :  m 

• 

:   :   :  :  a 

!   :   •  :  o 

• 

;    •    •    '  u 

;    :    :  i?  " 

• 

iiill 

• 
* 

ll 

> 

C3    1)    > 


^(ii 


c3    d 


rt   c3 


oSJSJ.i^^lls 


§t>6o|-!2;^3^;MS 


&■ 


a 


■t^    -iJt    .t^    .^^    -L^   w^   '■ 


&  0.2 


j3    t<   <u  ' 


fe  5  2  B  2 


E  o  i 


>-.  *-  t  =3  3  a 


3  «  =5  o  o^ 

■^      PI      <51      P^      H 


«0«o—    COOOOhoiS''^*ju=' 
P»Pnt?ifnH|iH(i<pMpM[J^C0taCC!OPHC«Mpq 


21  c« . 


■* 

Oi 

iH 

oo  <r>  !-!•<*< 

i-H  1-1 

o 

50 
iH 

rH 

in  i^oo'^f 

Q  05  00  CO 

I-H 

I-H                 I-H 

CO 

§3        , 

•41 

to 


i 


S  S  c^  £P 
g  =-i:  2 

PI'S 

-u  cr^i  2 
f-t  1-,  h^  a 

o   e4   o  4( 

O  o  o  o 
HHHH 


>, 


§3 


3 

tH 

Z> 

00 

3 

■^ 

1-1 

CO 
<M 

BRITISH  AND  AMERICAN  JOINT  COMMISSION 


ON  THE 


HUDSON'S  BAY  AND  PUGET'S  SOUND  AGRICUL- 
TURAL COMPANIES'  CLAIMS. 


Jn  the  matter  of  the  Claim  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  vs. 
the  United  States  of  America. 

355  H  street,  Washington,  March  5, 1857. 
It  is  hereby  stipulated  and  agreed  by  and  between  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company,  claimant,  and  the  United  States, 
respondent,  as  follows: 

1.  The  re-examination  of  Dugald  MacTavish,  Esq.,  shall 
be  resumed  and  completed  as  to  all  matters  of  competent 
and  lawful  evidence,  aftecting  the  claim  of  said  Company  or 
the  defence  of  the  United  States. 

2.  It  is  insisted  by  the  United  States  that  such  re-examina- 
tion is  to  be  regarded  as  continuation  of  the  cross-examina- 
tion of  said  MacTavish  by  the  United  States;  and  in  view 
thereof,  the  United  States  are  to  propound  all  such  inter- 
rogatories as  would  be  competent  on  cross-examination, 
either  in  substance  or  in  form;  and  the  testimony  to  be  thus 
given  shall,  if  otherwise  competent,  be  received  as  lawful 
evidence,  subject  only  to  the  determination  of  the  Commis- 
sioners, at  the  final  hearing,  whether  such  testimony  shall 
be  regarded  as  cross-examination  of  the  claimant's  witness, 
or  whether  the  witness  shall  be  regarded  pro  hac  vice  as  the 
witness  of  the  United  States. 

3.  It  is  insisted,  on  the  part  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Com- 
pany, that,  at  the  present  stage  of  the  case,  the  United 
States  have  no  right  to  resume  the  cross-examination  of  said 
MacTavish,  and  that,  in  the  contemplated  re-examination, 
he  ought  to  be  regarded  as  pro  hac  vice  a  witness  produced 
by  the  United  States;  in  which  point  of  view  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company  shall  have  the  right  to  propound  any  inter- 


■^■aiKWOmi*  '■'H  »  ■»  O   t«riirt«  »• 


40 

rogatories  to  said  MacTavish  which  would  be  competent, 
either  in  form  or  substance,  to  be  propounded  to  any  wit- 
ness on  cross-examination. 

4.  The  United  States  further  insist  that  they  have  the 
right  to  treat  the  said  MacTavish  as  in  effect  the  adverse 
party  in  the  case,  and  to  propound  to  him  all  interrogato- 
ries which  it  would  be  competent,  either  in  form  or  sub- 
stance, to  propound  to  a  party;  but  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company  do  not  admit  this;  and  the  question  of  the  relation 
of  said  MacTavish  to  the  claim',  and  the  effect  of  that,  if  any, 
on  the  manner  of  examination,  shall  remain  for  the  deter- 
mination of  the  Commissioners. 

6.  It  is  understood  that  the  Commissioners  shall  have  the 
power  to  determine,  either  that  the  whole  of  this  re-exam- 
ination is  cross-examination,  or  that  the  whole  of  it  is 
examination-in-chief,  or  that  it  is  part  one  and  part  the 
other,  or  that  it  is  or  is  not  the  interrogation  of  a  party,  as 
they,  in  their  judgment,  shall  deem  conformable  to  law. 

6.  Of  course,  it  is  understood  that  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company  will  not  object  to  any  question  propounded  by  the 
United  States,  for  matter  or  form;  as,  for  example,  whether 
leading  or  otherwise,  or  whether  new  matter  or  not;  and, 
on  the  other  hand,  no  such  objection  will  be  made  by  the 
United  States  to  any  question  propounded  by  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company;  but  each  party  reserves  to  itself  the  right 
to  take  all  such  points  of  form  at  the  final  hearing,  as  aft'ect- 
ing  only  the  question  whether,  in  this  matter,  said  MacTavish 
is  to  be  regarded  as  a  witness  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Com- 
pany. 

C.    CUSHINO, 

For  the  United  States. 
Edward  Lander, 
For  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company. 
It  is  further  agreed  that  Mr.  MacTavish  shall  be  re-sworn 
without  prejudice  to  the  above  agreement. 

Chas.  C.  Beaman,  Jr., 

For  the  United  States. 
Edward  Lander. 
March  12, 1867. 


BRITISH  AND  AMERICAN  JOINT  COMMISSION 


ON  THE 


HUDSON'S  BAY  AND  PUGET'S  SOUND  AGRICUL 
TURAL  COMPANIES'  CLAIMS. 


In  the  matter  of  the  Claim  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  vs.  the 
United  States  of  America. 

The  examination  or  cross-examination  of  Dugald  Mac- 
Tavlnh  resumed  according  to  stipulation  entered  into  bj'  Mr. 
C.  Cusliing,  counsel  for  the  United  States,  and  Mr.  Edward 
Lander,  counsel  for  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  this  8th  of 
March,  1867,  at  Washington  City,  D.  C. 

Int.  1. — What  offices  have  you  held  at  various  times  under 
the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  ? 

Ans. — I  was  first  a  clerk,  from  1833  until  1846;  then  I  was 
promoted  to  a  chief  tradership,  and  in  1851  to  a  chief  factor- 
ship, which  is  my  present  position.  ' 

Int.  2. — What  were  your  duties  as  clerk  ? 

Ans. — As  a  general  thing  I  was  employed  in  office  busi- 
ness ;  as  senior  clei'k  I  kept  the  books.  I  held  a  subordinate 
position  from  1833  to  1838,  in  the  different  offices  of  the 
Company  I  was  in  at  that  time.  In  the  years  1839  and 
1840, 1  was  a  clerk  of  the  second  class,  and  from  1841,  on 
to  1846,  I  was  a  clerk  of  the  first  class,  du-ing  the  three 
first  years  of  which  period  I  was  the  book-keeper  and 
accountant  at  Fort  Vancouver.  During  the  winter  of  1844 
and  1845,  I  assisted  Mr.  Thomas  Lowe,  then  book-keeper 
there.  In  the  winter  of  1845-46, 1  went  down  to  San  Fran- 
cisco for  the  purpose  of  closing  out  the  Company's  business, 
and  while  down  there  I  became  a  chief  trader. 

Int.  8. — What  were  your  duties  as  chief  trader? 


4 


': 


■( 


42 

Ans. — I  was  at  Fort  Vancouver  for  some  months  after  my 
promotion  to  that  position,  assisting  in  the  office  there,  and 
in  other  departments  of  the  business.  Early  in  January, 
1847, 1  left  Fort  Vancouver,  proceeding  to  Honolulu,  Sand- 
wich Islands,  where  I  remained  until  August,  185-,  at  which 
time  I  was  a  factor.  For  nearly  four  years  after  arriving  at 
Honolulu,  I  was  in  connection  with  a  Mr.  Pelly,  managing 
a  general  business  establishment  for  the  Company  there. 
When  Mr.  Pelly  left  the  Islands,  I  ^ya^  alone  in  the  manage- 
ment for  about  twelve  months,  when  a  Mr.  Clouston  came 
there,  when  we  managed  the  business  jointly,  until  I  left,  as 
before  stated. 

Int.  4. — What  were  your  duties  as  chief  factor  ? 

Aifs. — In  September,  1853, 1  returned  to  Fort  Vancouver, 
and  I  became  a  member  of  a  board  consisting  of  the  late 
Mr.  Ogden  and  myself.  On  his  death,  in  1854,  I  formed 
the  board  alone,  until  1857,  when  Mr.  Tolmie  became  the 
other  member  of  the  board.  From  1853,  until  June,  1858, 
when  I  finally  left  Fort  Vancouver,  the  duties  of  the  board 
were  the  general  management  of  the  posts  of  the  Company, 
wliich  were  situated  in  Oregon  and  Washington  Territory. 
From  Fort  Vancouver  I  went  to  Victoria,  Vancouver's 
Island.  I  remained  there  until  February,  1859,  not  having 
done  much  in  the  mean  time.  I  then  left  on  sick  leave,  and 
was  absent  until  June,  1860,  when  i  teturned  and  became  a 
member  of  the  board  for  the  management  of  the  Company's 
posts,  in  what  is  now  known  as  British  Columbia.  I  left  Vic- 
toria for  England  in  November,  1863,  remaining  there  until 
the  end  of  October,  1864,  when  I  came  out  to  Washington 
City,  D.  C. ;  thence  proceeding  to  Canada,  where  I  passed  the 
winter.  In  May,  1865,  I  left  there  for  Vancouver  Island, 
landing  there  at  the  end  of  June.  On  the  Ist  of  November 
following,  I  left  Vancouver  Island  and  proceeded  to  Mon- 
treal, Canada,  where  I  arrived  before  Christmas,  remaining 
there  for  about  two  months.  I  then  came  to  Washington 
City,  where  I  stayed  about  a  month.  I  again  went  to  Mon- 
treal, and  in  about  another  month  I  came  back  to  Washing- 


48 

ton  city,  arnl  between  there  and  New  York  I  remnined  until 
the  middle  of  July,  when  I  went  to  Montreal.  I  returned 
to  Wasliiiiijton  City  the  day  after  Christmas,  and  from  that 
time  oil,  until  now,  I  have  been  moving  about  in  North 
Carolina,  New  York,  and  Washington  city. 

Int.  5. — What  are  the  official  names  of  the  officers  of  the 
Hudson's  Buy  Company  ? 

Ans. — In  London  the  stockholders  of  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company  are  represented  by  the  Governor,  Deputy  Gov- 
ernor, and  Committee,  who  have  a  general  control  of  the 
entire  business,  both  there  and  in  North  America,  where 
their  trade  is  carried  on.  In  North  America  the  business 
is  conducted  by  the  Governor  of  Rupert's  Land,  and  the 
chief  factors  and  chief  traders.  The  two  latter  grades  of 
officers  being  interested  in  the  trade  by  agreement  with  the 
the  Governor,  Deputy  Governor,  and  Committee.  By  this 
arrangement  the  entire  profits  of  the  fur  trade  in  each  year 
are  divided  into  one  hundred  shares,  sixty  of  which  are 
divided  among  the  stockholders,  and  forty  among  the  chief 
factors  and  chief  traders,  in  the  proportion  of  two  eighty- 
fifths  to  each  chief  factor,  and  half  that  sum  to  each  chief 
trader.  I  believe  there  are  about  sixteen  chief  factors  on 
the  active  list  now,  but  I  am  unable  to  say  what  number  of 
chief  traders  there  are,  for  the  reason  that  a  great  number 
of  these  eighty-fifth  shares  are  now  divided  among  the  chief 
factors  and  chief  traders  who  are  retired.  Sir  Edmund  Head, 
baronet,  is  the  Governor  of  the  Company  in  London,  and 
Sir  Curtis  Miranda  Lampson,  baronet,  is  the  Deputy  Gov- 
ernor. The  Committee  consists  of  five  or  six  members, 
whose  names  I  cannot  give.  The  present  Governor  of  Ru- 
pert's Land  is  William  MacTavish,  Esq.  The  general  busi- 
ness in  Rupert's  Land,  North  America,  and  what  is  known 
to  the  Company's  people  as  the  Northern  and  Southern  De- 
partments, is  managed  by  the  Governor  and  Council  which 
meets  annually  either  at  Red  River  or  Norway  House,  on 
Lake  Winepeg.  This  Council  consists  O'  i'  Governor  and 
such  chief  factors  and  chief  traders  as  can  be  conveniently 
collected  each  season  at  the  place  that  may  be  appointed  for 


44 


) 


I 


the  meeting.  At  this  Council  the  appointments  of  the 
difl'erent  grades  of  officers,  consisting  of  chief  factors  and 
chief  traders,  with  the  clerks  and  postmasters  of  all  grades 
to  the  various  posts  and  stniiotis  whore  they  are  to  pass  the 
next  winter  are  decided  on,  and  any  other  regulations  that 
may  bo  necessary  for  the  conduct  ofthe  business.  After 
the  Council  has  adjourned,  a  copy  of  the  minutes  are  trans- 
mitted to  the  Governor,  Deputy  Governor,  and  Committee 
for  their  approval.  On  their  doing  so,  the  resolutions  passed 
in  this  way  at  this  Council  become  binding  on  all  parties 
interested.  And  should  any  of  the  proceedings  not  meet 
the  sanction  of  the  Governor  and  Committee,  the  points  in 
question,  whatever  they  may  be,  remain  open  for  discussion 
at  the  next  meeting  of  the  Council  at  Rupert's  Land. 

Int.  6. — Is  the  organization  you  have  just  described  as 
now  existing,  the  same  that  existed  in  1846  ? 

Ans. — So  far  as  I  know,  it  it  is  the  same. 

Int.  7. — Did  this  same  organization  extend  to  the  posts 
south  of  the  49th  parallel  ot  latitude  ? 

Ans. — Yes,  I  believe  so. 

Int.  8. — When^was  the  annual  return  of  the  various  posts 
made,  and  to  whom  were  they  made  ? 

Ana. — Speaking  of  the  Company's  posts  on  est  side 

'  of  the  Rocky  Mountains,  I  believe  that,  up  to  tliv.  ^  oar  1853, 
the  books  and  accounts  generally  of  all  the  posts  came  to 
Vancouver  sufficiently  early  to  permit  of  closing  them  by 
the  middle  of  March  annually;  and  copies  of  the  full 
accounts,  as  they  came  from  each  post,  were  sent  to  York 
Factory,  Hudson's  Bay,  where  they  were  amalgamated  with 
the  general  accounts  of  the  Northern  Department,  for  the 
purpose  of  transmission  to  London  of  such  portions  of  them 
as  might  be  required,  in  order  to  arrive  at  the  profits  of  the 
trade  in  each  year,  for  division  among  the  parties  intei'ested. 
In  1854,  the  only  accounts  closed  at  Fort  Vancouver  were 
those  of  the  Company's  posts  which  were  in  American 
territory;  the  accounts  for  that  year  of  the  posts  north  of 
the  49th  paiallel  having  been  closed  at  Vancouver's  Island, 
the  books  from  both  places  were  again  forwarded  by  express 


li 


;;*(•/— *Af»—#. 


•^' i-f- '. .,, ;■-•>  *"*•*' '--y^ ■•- V*V*<i»^*««iC''-"'<W»f.»W*. ■A'*..  . 


M^^^ 


45 

to  York  Factory  for  the  last  time,  as  afterwards  in  each  year 
the  books,  on  being  closed  at  each  depot,  were  sent  direct 
by  express  to  the  Hudson's  Bay  House,  London,  until  the 
Company  finally  left  Fort  Vancouver,  in  18G0.  At  Fort 
Victoria,  the  same  routine  is  followed  to  the  present  day. 
Some  years  must  necessarily  pass  before  one  can  arrive  at 
the  actual  profits  of  the  trade  in  each  season. 

Int.  9. — What  did  the  returns  from  each  .post  to  Van- 
couver each  year  show? 

Ana. — The  books  from  each  post  showed  the  inventory  of 
goods  and  property  on  hand  at  the  commencement  and  end 
of  each  year,  the  supplies,  the  sales,  and  the  returns,  in  furs 
and  money,  or  bills,  as  the  case  might  be.  There  might 
have  been  other  details  given,  which  may  have  escaped  my 
memory.  At  each  of  the  posts,  I  believe,  there  were 
books,  of  which  copies  might  not  have  been  sent  to  the 
depot. 

Int.  10. — Did  not  the  books  at  Vancouver  show  the  num- 
ber of  persons  employed  at  each  post  in  each  year,  and  the 
wages  that  were  paid  to  them  ? 

Ans. — The  books  at  Vancouver  would  show  the  number 
of  men  at  each  post  who  were  under  written  agreement 
with  the  Company;  likewise  the  amount  of  wages  paid 
them.  But  the  books  at  Vancouver  would  not  show  the 
number  or  the  wages  paid  to  parties  employed  temporarily 
at  the  Company's  posts,  that  being  adjusted  and  arranged 
by  the  ofHcers  in  charge  of  these  posts,  without  reference  to 
Fort  Vancouver. 

Int.  11. — Would  not  the  returns  from  each  post  show  how 
much  money  had  been  paid  to  persons  employed  at  the 
posts  in  addition  to  those  employed  under  a  particular 
contract? 

A71S. — They  might,  or  they  might  not.  There  is  no  doubt 
but  that  the  books  of  detail  kept  at  the  difterent  posts  to 
which  I  have  already  made  reference  ought  to  have  such 
entries  in  them,  but  it  would  not  necessarily  follow  that 
copies  of  such  entries  should  be  sent  to  Fort  Vancouver. 

Int.  12. — Was  not  the  amount  of  money  spent  at  each 


46 


post  during  each  jeer  shor^n  by  the  returns  made  to  Van- 
couver? . 

Ans. — "Without  seeing  the  hooks,  I  cannot  answer  from 
memory.  They  may  have  done  so,  or  they  may  not.  Pre- 
vious to  1846,  there  was  very  little  money  came  in  at  any  of 
the  posts. 

Int.  I'd. — How  were  the  laborers  at  the  posts,  not  serving 
under  particular  contracts,  paid? 

Ans. — The  parties  temporarily  employed  were  paid  accord- 
ing to  the  agreement  they  may  have  made  with  the  officers 
in  charge ;  generally,  no  doubt,  in  goods. 

Int.  14. — Would  not  the  books  at  Vancouver  show  hov 
much  was  paid  in  goods  for  temporary  laborers? 

Ans. — They  might,  or  they  might  not.  The  books  at  the 
posts  ought  to  do  so. 

Int.  15. — Were  the  books  at  these  various  posts  never 
sent  to  Vancouver  ? 

Ans. — They  may  or  may  not  have  been ;  I  can't  be  sure  of  it. 

Int.  16. — Do  I  understand  you  to  say  that  all  the  xnoneys 
and  goods  expended  for  labor  and  other  purposes  at  each 
post  during  each  year  were  shown  by  the  books  at  Van- 
couver? 

Ans. — There  were  disbursements,  both  in  money  and 
goods,  at  the  different  posts,  which  the  general  accounts  at 
Vancouver  would  not  show. 

Int.  17. — What  were  these  disbursements? 

Ans. — I  cannot  tell,  without  seeing  the  books.  N^o  disburse- 
ments for  buildings  would  appear  in  the  generfil  accounts. 

Int.  18. — Why  did  not  disbursements  for  buildings  appear 
in  the  books? 

Exomination  Resumed  March  12, 1867. 
Ans. — Such  di3bur8ements  did  not  appear  in  the  general 
accounts  of  the  Company,  owing  to  a  regulation  to  that 
effect,  of  old  date  when  I  came  to  the  country.  The  x-easona 
for  such  a  regulation  are  probably  not  well  known  at  the 
present  day;  but  I  have  understood  that  one  cau.se  in  the 
matter  wrs,  that,  long  previous  to  the  year  1821,  there  were 
two  companies — one  the  Hudson's  Bay,  and  the  other  the 


47 

!N"orthwe8t,  of  Canada — competing  in  opposition  in  the 
Indian  countries  of  North  America,  for  the  trade  with  t  le 
natives.  At  many  places  the  two  concerns  had  posts,  and 
estahlishments  contiguous  to  oie  another.  At  other  places 
the  Hudson's  Baj  Company  was  left  pretty  much  alone,  as 
in  the  country  around  Hudson's  Bay.  Again,  the  i^orth- 
west  Company  was  alone  at  different  points,  as  the  Hud- 
son's Bay  Company  had  not  followed  them  across  the  Rocky 
Mountains.  In  1821,  the  two  companies  joined  and  hccarae 
the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  when  the  agreement  was  first 
made  wivh  the  chief  factors  and  chief  traders,  and  the 
new  concv-irn  became  proprietors  free  of  charge  of  all  the 
lands,  buildings  and  improvements  that  the  two  companies 
had  in  use,  throughout  the  Indian  country  generally,  previous 
to  the  junction. 

Starting  on  this  footing,  it  was  then  arranged  that  such 
property  should  not  be  valued  on  the  books  from  year  to 
year.  And,  moreover,  in  order  to  simplify  the  accounts 
during  the  period  of  the  agreement,  it  was  also  arranged 
that  all  outlay  at  the  different  posts  referred  to,  in  the  shape 
of  repairs  or  renewals  of  the  buildings,  should  be  a  charge 
on  the  business  of  the  year  in  which  such  operations  might 
be  carried  on;  and  that,  therefore,  no  entry  for  such  outlay 
would  appear  in  the  general  accounts  at  all.  This  regula- 
tion, I  believe,  is  in  force  to  the  present  day,  when  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company  is  in  possession  of  posts  and  trading 
establishments  all  through  the  Indian  countries  of  British 
North  America,  where  they  have  improvements  of  various 
kinds,  but  of  which,  I  believe,  there  is  no  valuation  in  the 
London  accounts,  and  of  which  the  accountant  there  can 
have  no  knowledge  whatever. 

Int.  19. — Was  the  regulation  you  speak  of  in  the  begin- 
ning of  your  answer  to  the  last  interrogatory,  given  to  all 
the  book-keepers  of  the  lIviJ:on's  Bay  Company,  and  did  it 
apply  to  all  the  posts? 

Ans. — -To  the  book-keei'oni  or  accountants  serving  in  the 
Indian  country,  I  believe  the  rule  was  general,  and  so  far  as 
I  know,  it  applied  to  all  the  posts  in  the  Indian  country. 


48 


I' 


Int.  20. — "Did  it  apply  to  you  while  you  were  book-keeper 
at  Vancouver  ? 

An«. — It  did. 

Int.  21. — Were  not  the  books  of  the  Company  kept  under 
certain  other  regulations,  which  were  prescribed  by  the  offi- 
cers of  the  Company  at  London? 

Ans. — During  my  term  of  service  as  a  book-keeper,  the 
books  were  kept  according  to  a  certain  method;  but  I  was 
under  the  impression  then  that  the  regulations  for  keeping 
the  books  emanated  from  the  Governor  and  Council  in  the 
country,  and  were  acted  on  when  approved  of  by  the 
Governor  and  Committee  in  London.  There  was  a  long 
string  of  rules  and  regulations  for  keeping  the  Company's 
books  in  the  country;  but  at  this  distance  of  time,  I  have 
really  very  little  recollection  about  Ihem.  I  think  I  have 
seen  them  both  written  and  printed. 

Int.  22. — Are  not  now  substantially  the  same  regulations 
prescribed  to  the  book-keepers  of  the  Company  ? 

Ans. — ^Probably  they  are ;  I  hardly  know.  ' 

Int.  23. — When  did  you  last  see  a  copy  of  the  regulations 
under  which  the  books  of  the  Company  were  kept? 

Ans. — It  is  almost  impossible  for  me  to  say.  I  do  not 
think  my  attention  has  been  called  to  the  matter  for  years. 

Int.  24. — Was  the  agreement  you  have  spoken  of  in 
answer  to  interrogatory  18,  between  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company  and  the  Northwest  Company,  in  writing? 

An8. — I  believe  it  was  in  writing,  although  I  can  have  no 
personal  knowledge  of  the  matter. 

Int.  25. — Have  you  ever  seen  this  agreement  ? 

Ana. — I  may  have  seen  a  copy  of  it. 

Int.  26. — You  say  that  it  v/as  "  also  arranged  that  all  out- 
lay at  the  diftorent  posts  referred  to  in  the  shape  of  repairs 
or  renewal  of  the  buildings  should  bo  a  charge  on  the  busi- 
ness of  the  year  in  which  such  operations  might  be  carried 
on."  Where  was  the  first  time  this  change  would  appear 
on  the  Company's  books? 

Ans. — It  ought  to  appear,  of  course,  in  the  local  books  of 
each  post  where  such  repairs  were  made  in  each  year. 


'i' 


49 


Int.  27. — Where  was  the  last  time  it  appeared? 

An%. — The  entry  I  have  referred  to  in  my  last  answer 
would  be  the  first  and  the  last  of  it. 

Int.  28. — Would  not  it  afterwards  appear  in  some  shape 
on  some  other  books  of  the  Company? 

Ans. — ^Not  that  I  know  of. 

Int.  29. —  It  is  stated  in  the  testimony  of  Sir  James  Doug- 
las, a  witness  on  the  part  of  the  Company,  (in  answer  to  in- 
terrogatory 6,)  that  the  outlay  on  buildings  and  other  per- 
manent improvements  at  the  difl'erent  establishments  at  the 
close  of  each  year,  was  written  off  the  books,  or  in  other 
words,  carried  to  profit  and  loss  account,  and  now  I  under- 
stand you  to  say  that  these  same  charges  appeared  in  no 
form  on  any  book,  except  the  books  at  the  separate  posts. 
Is  your  statement  consistent  or  not  with  the  statement  of  Sir 
James  Douglas? 

Am. — Sir  James'  views  of  the  matter  and  mine  coincide 
exactly.  Supposing  at  one  of  the  posts  $100  of  outlay  had 
been  made  in  the  shape  of  repairs,  in  almost  any  other  busi- 
ness this  sum  would  have  appeared  to  the  credit  of  the  post 
as  a  necessary  outlay.  By  the  Company's  regulation  this 
sum  of  $100  is  lost  to  the  post  in  making  up  the  accounts  of 
the  year,  so  that  it  goes  to  profit  and  loss. 

Int.  30. — Would  not  the  outlay  of  $100  appear  on  the 
general  books  of  the  Cor  pany,  not  as  outlay,  but  as  profit 
and  loss  ? 

Ans. — It  would  not  appear  as  a  distinct  entry;  but  liad 
the  outlay  not  been  made  at  the  post,  the  amount  of  profit 
in  the  general  balance  sheet  of  the  year  would  have  boeu 
increased  by  exactly  that  sum  $100.  In  that  way  the  profit 
and  loss  account  is  affected  by  it,  certainly. 

Int.  31. — Did  the  general  books  show  a  separate  account 
with  each  post  ? 

Ana. — As  the  books  were. kept  at  Vancouver,  some  of  the 
posts  were  separate,  and  others  were  combined  into  districts. 
Thus,  Fort  Colvile  combined  the  accounts  of  that  post  itself 
with  the  posts  at  the  Kootenay  and  Flathead.  Fort  Okana- 
gan  was  a  post  attached  to  Thompson's  river  district.    The 


60 

Snake  country  included  the  posts  at  Fort  Hall  and  Bois6* 
Fort  Nez  Percys  or  Walla- Walla  was  ?  district  of  itself.  The 
Fort  Vancouver  Indian  trade  combined  the  Indian  trade  of 
that  post  with  that  of  the  Umpqua,  Fort  George  or  Astoria, 
and  the  Pillar  Rock.  There  were  other  districts  and  posts 
which  I  don't  now  remember. 

Int.  32. — What  else  appeared  in  the  profit  and  loss  account 
besides  the  outlay  on  buildings? 

Ans. — I  hardly  know  without  seeing  the  books. 

Int.  33. — If  you  saw  the  books,  could  you  tell  how  much 
of  the  profit  and  loss  account  was  made  up  of  the  cost  of 
buildings,  and  how  much  from  other  things  ? 

Ans. — If  the  details  of  such  accounts  were  shown  to  me  I 
could  tell  the  amount.  The  general  accounts  as  they  were 
kept  in  my  time  would  give  no  information  as  to  the  outlay 
for  buildings. 

Jnt.  34. — Give  the  names  of  all  the  books  that  were  kept 
by  you  at  Vancouver,  and  tell  what  each  contained. 

Ans. — There  were  a  great  many  books  kept  by  me  at  Van- 
couver ;  I  hardly  am  prepared  now  to  give  their  names  or 
say  what  their  contents  were. 

Int.  35. — Will  you  make  a  detailed  statement  of  the  ac- 
countability of  the  officers  of  the  separate  posts,  to  the  post 
at  Vancouver,  for  all  goods  and  moneys  sent  to  them,  or  re- 
ceived by  them,  or  all  furs  or  other  goods  received  by  them, 
also  the  accountability  of  the  officers  at  Vancouver  to  each 
other,  and  of  the  post  at  Vancouver  to  the  Governor  and 
Committee  at  London. 

Ans. — During  my  connection  with  Fort  Vancouver,  be- 
tween the  years  1839  and  1845,  the  late  Dr.  MiLoughlin,  as 
senior  chief  factor,  had  control  of  the  Company's  business  on 
the  west  side  of  the  Rocky  Mountains,  during  which  time, 
Vancouver  was  the  centre  and  headquarters  of  the  trade. 
In  each  year,  the  supplies  of  goods  for  the  interior  posts  up 
the  Columbia  were  sent  up  from  there,  and  the  furs  traded 
for  and  collected  in  each  year  were  also  brought  down  to 
Vancouver.  In  the  same  way  supplies  for  the  trade  on  the 
northwest  coast,  and  the  furs  from  there  were  brought  back 


u. 


m 


61 


in  ships.  The  supplies  for  the  trade  and  equipment  of  the 
posts  consisted,  generally,  of  the  trading  goods  and  pro- 
visions. I  do  not  think  there  was  much  cash  or  ready 
moncj  used.  I  am  not  aware  that  it  was  customary  for  the 
officers  in  charge  of  districts  and  posts  to  give  vc-jhers 
when  they  received  goods  from  the  depot  at  Fort  Var  <  ouver, 
nor  were  receipts  given  to  them  for  the  furs  that  were  sent  to 
the  depot;  further  than  this — acknowledgments  made  by  let- 
ter. Sometimes,  when  the  gentlemen  would  accompany  the 
brigades  from  the  interior  to  the  depot,  I  am  not  certain  that 
even  that  form  of  acknowledgment  was  followed.  The  goods 
for  the  supply  of  the  trade  required  from  England  were 
furnished  from  time  to  time  on  requisition  of  the  late  Dr. 
McLoughlin.  The  furs  collected  in  each  year  were  packed 
and  sent  to  England.  The  officers  in  charge  of  the  posts, 
as  well  as  at  Fort  Vancouver  itself,  were  all  accountable  to 
Dr.  McLoughlin,  as  having  a  general  superintendence  of  the 
business ;  and  he,  himself,  though  in  communication  with 
the  Governor  and  Committee  in  London,  was  in  reality  ac- 
countable to  the  Governor  and  Council  of  Eupert's  Land. 

Int.  36. — Would  not  the  books  at  Vancouver  show  the 
number  of  hinges,  nails,  axes,  and  goods  of  all  kinds  sent 
to  each  post  in  any  one  year,  and  the  amount  of  furs  received 
from  each  post  or  district  ? 

Ans. — The  accounts  in  my  time  would  show  these  entries 
not  to  each  post,  probably,  but  in  the  collective  form  of  dis- 
tricts. 

Int.  37. — What  would  prevent  the  officer  at  each  post  from 
erecting  as  many  buildings  as  he  pleased  ? 

Am. — In  such  case,  before  doing  so,  he  would  have  to 
communicate  with  his  senior  officer.  In  the  case  of  neces- 
sary repairs,  he  would  have  to  do  it  on  his  own  authority. 

Int.  38. — Would  the  books  at  Vancouver  show  what  was 
the  cost  of  the  erection  of  the  various  buildings  at  that 
post  ? 

Ans. — The  general  accounts  would  not  show  it. 

Int.  39. — ^What  accounts  would  show  it? 

Ans. — There  was  a  considerable  portion  of  Fort  Vancou- 


'h  /t 


52 

ver  built  before  I  went  there ;  a  great  deal  of  money  had 
been  laid  out  upon  it,  and  upon  improvements  generally. 
During  my  connection  with  the  place  then,  I  suppose  the 
outlay  could  be  found  in  the  local  books  of  the  place,  that 
is  to  say  the  wages  and  material  used  for  the  buildings. 

Int.  40. — What  buildings  were  built  at  Vancouver  after 
you  went  there  in  1839,  for  which  the  Hudson's  Bay  Com- 
pany now  claim  compensation  ? 

Ans. — ^Within  the  fort  itself,  the  picketing  or  stockade 
fence  was  entirely  renewed,  all  the  large  warehouses,  four,  I 
think,  in  number,  the  office,  the  bakehouse,  the  prison,  and 
the  forge.  Outside  the  foi't  pretty  much  all  the  dwelling- 
houses,  and  everything  in  the  shape  of  stores,  the  church, 
the  school-houses,  farms,  and  various  dwelling-houses.  On 
the  Mill  Plain,  six  miles  from  the  fort,  the  farm  of  a  thousand 
acres  was  put  under  fence,  the  necessary  farm  buildings 
thereon,  stables,  barns,  dwelling-houses,  &c.  At  the  saw 
and  grist-mills  new  mills  were  put  up ;  also  at  the  dairies,  on 
Sauvies'  Island,  and  below  Fort  Vancouver,  new  buildings 
were  put  up. 

Int.  41. — Was  there  not,  about  the  year  1864,  a  controver- 
sey  between  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  and  the  Catholic 
Church  about  certain  buildings  at  Vancouver,  and  was  not 
the  cost  of  construction  and  material  furnished  by  the  Com- 
pany, shown  from  the  books  of  the  Company  by  Mr.  Grahame, 
an  officer  of  the  Company  ? 

,  Ans. — I  am  not  aware  there  was  ever  any  controversy  be- 
tween the  Catholic  Mission  and  the  Company,  neither  was  I 
aware  that  Mr.  Grahame  had  acted  as  stated  in  the  question. 
Int.  42. — When  did  you  last  see  the  books  of  the  Com- 
pany, which  you  say  you  suppose  might  show  the  "  wages 
and  materials"  used  for  the  buildings  at  Vancouver  ? 

Ana. — I  could  hardly  say.  I  have  already  stated  that  there 
had  been  a  great  deal  of  outlay  incurred  on  the  improve- 
ments of  Fort  Vancouver  before  I  went  there,  of  which  I 
had  a  very  imperfect  knowledge.  Of  the  outlay  during  my 
connection  with  the  place,  I  really  do  not  know  when  I  saw 
the  books. 


;? 


53 

Int.  43. — Have  you  seen  them  since  1850  ? 

Ans. — I  may  have  seen  them ;  I  do  not  know. 

lilt.  44. — Do  you  remember  to  have  seen  them  since  1860? 

Ans. — I  may  have  seen  some  of  them ;  I  dare  say  I  have. 

I7it.  45. — "When,  since  1850,  have  you  seen  some  of  them  ? 

Ans. — ^I  may  have  seen  some  of  them  at  Vancouver's 
Island. 

Int.  46. — Do  you  remember  to  have  seen  any  of  them  at 
Vancouver's  Island  since  1850  ? 

•  Ans. — I  think  I  have  seen  the  books  of  wages  paid  to  ser- 
vants, under  agreement  at  the  different  posts,  for  some  of  the 
years  I  was  at  Fort  Vancouver. 

Int.  47. — In  whose  possession  were  these  books  ? 

Ans. — In  the  Company's  oflBce,  at  Victoria. 

Int.  48. — When  do  you  last  remember  to  have  seen  any  of 
these  other  books,  referred  to  in  your  answer  to  interrogatory 
39,  as  local  books  ? 

Ans. — I  do  not  know  when  I  saw  them  last. 
.  Int.  49. — Do  you  remember  to  have  seen  them  since  1846? 

Ans. — I  may  have  seen  them  in  1846 ;  but  I  have  no  recol- 
lection of  seeing  them  since. 

Int.  50. — Were  these  local  books  at  Vancouver  when  you 
left  there  in  1844  ? 

Ans. — Yes,  so  far  as  I  know. 

Int.  51. — Who  succeeded  you  as  book-keeper  of  the  Com- 
pany? 

Ans. — Thqmas  Lowe.    ,  i 

March  13,  1867,  Resumed. 

Int.  52. — When  did  you  last  see  any  of  the  Company's 
books  at  Vancouver  ? 

Ans. — In  the  year  1858. 

Int.  53. — What  books  did  you  see? 

-4w».-^There  was  quite  a  number  of  books ;  I  can't  detail 
them. 

Int.  54. — Can't  you  give  a  more  detailed  answer  to  the  last 
question? 


^    ♦•►^  ..*>. 


54 


Am. — For  some  years  previous  to  1958, 1  had  charge  of 
Fort  Vancouver,  where  in  the  oflSce  of  the  establishment  there 
were  a  great  number  of  account  books  of  various  kinds,  of 
which  I  had  very  little  personal  knowledge.  In  the  summer 
of  1858,  I  transferred  the  charge  to  Mr.  Grahame,  books  and 
all,  and  left  the  place. 

Int.  55. — How  many  books  were  there  when  you  trans- 
ferred them  to  Mr.  Grahame? 

Ans. — There  were  a  great  many  books  on  the  shelves,  and 
packed  away  in  cases;  I  could  hardly  estimate  the  numbers  J 
there  must  have  been  some  hundreds  of  books,  I  should  think. 

Int.  56. — Were  these  the  general  or  local  books  of  the 
Company  ? 

Ans. — So  far  as  I  know,  they  were  all  the  books  of  the 
Company,  for  many  years  previous. 

Int.  57. — Was  it  not  the  custom  and  duty  of  the  Company's 
officers  to  preserve  carefully  all  the  books  of  the  Company  ? 

Ans. — Yes ;  I  believe  so. 

Int.  58. — When  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  left  Vancou- 
ver, what  was  done  with  their  books  ? 

Ana. — I  was  not  at  Fort  Vancouver  when  the  Company  left 
there.  I  have  understood,  however,  that  when  they  did  leave 
there,  they  were  turned  out  of  house  and  home  by  General 
Harney ;  and  who,  as  I  understood,  was  then  a  general  officer 
in  the  regular  army  of  the  United  States.  The  Company's 
establishment,  which  they  had  long  occupied  there,  being  thus 
broken  up,  they  had  to  go  where  they  could  best  get  a  footing, 
and  then  went  to  Vancouver  Island.  What  they  took  or 
what  they  left  at  Vancouver,  I  cannot,  of  my  own  knowledge, 
say ;  and  if  anything  has  happened  to  any  of  the  Company's 
books  and  accounts,  which  I  left  in  very  perfect  order,  in  1858, 
and  which  I  suppose  would  have  been  there  to  this  day  but  for 
this  act,  then  General  Harney  is  to  blame  for  it. 

Int.  59. — Do  you  not,  as  an  officer  of  the  Company,  know, 
from  information  derived  from  other  officers  of  the  Company, 
what  was  done  with  the  Company's  books  when  they  left  Fort 
Vancouver  ? 

Ana. — I  have  understood  they  were  taken  to  Victoria. 


56 

Int.  60. — Did  you  not  nnderstand  they  were  all  taken  to 
Victoria? 

Ant. — I  may  have  so  understood;  I  am  not  positive. 

Int.  60J. — What  oflBcer  of  the  Company  was  entrusted  with 
the  duty  of  removing  the  Company's  books  and  other  prop- 
erty from  Vancouver  to  Victoria? 

Ant. — I  believe  it  was  Mr.  Grahamc. 

Int.  61. — Have  you  not  seen  some  of  these  books  at  Victo- 
ria since  1858? 

An$. — Yes. 

Int.  62. — What  ones,  and  how  many  have  you  so  seen  ? 

Ant. — I  could  not  answer  exactly.  Those  I  did  see  were 
merely  books  of  general  accounts  that  were  in  use  at  Fort 
Vancouver,  when  I  was  first  connected  with  the  place. 

Int.  63. — Do  you  know  whether  those  books  are  still  there  ? 

Ana. — So  far  as  I  know,  they  are  still  there. 

Int.  64. — Have  you  known  of  any  books  of  the  Company 
which  have  been  destroyed  within  the  last  ten  years  ? 

Am. — I  cannot  say  that  I  remember  any  being  destroyed 
within  ten  years ;  I  cannot  say,  however,  what  became  of  the 
books  at  Fort  Nez  Perces,  Fort  Boise,  Fort  Hall,  when  they 
wore  abandoned  during  the  Indian  war  of  1855-6. 

Int.  65. — Have  you  not  been  the  senior  officer  of  the  Hud- 
Bon's  Bay  Company,  on  the  Pacific  coast,  since  1861  ? 

Ant. — While  out  there,  I  have  been ;  I  was  out  there  for 
gomething  over  three  years,  since  1861. 

Int.  66. — Have  you  ever  given  ai\  order  of  any  kind  that 
any  books  of  the  Company  should  be  destroyed? 

Ana. — I  never  have  in  any  shape  o?  way. 

Int.  67. — Have  you  ever  learned  frjm  any  officers  of  the 
Company,  by  official  report  or  oihervisc,  that  any  books  of 
the  Company  have  been  in  any  way  destroyed?  ' 

Ana. — Not  that  I  remember  of. 

Int.  68. — Do  you  not  believe  that  all  the  general  books  of 
the  Company,  which  were  originally  kept  at  Vancouver,  are 
now  at  Victoria? 

Ana. — They  may  be  there.  I  have  no  personal  knowledge 
that  they  are  all  there,  not  having  seen  them  all 


.«    «  — .  ,. —. 


56 

Int.  69. — Do  you  not  believe  that  the  local  books  of  tbe 
post  at  Vancouver  and  other  posts  are  there? 

Ans. — They  may  bo  there.  I  myself,  however,  saw  none  of 
them,  unless  it  miiy  have  been  the  books  containing  the  list  of 
wages  of  the  engaged  servants  at  the  different  posts. 

Int.  70. — Were  not  these  books  of  wages  part  of  the  general 
books,  as  well  as  of  the  local  books? 

Ans. — They  were  part  oS  the  general  accounts,  by  which 
you  saw  the  wages  paid  to  the  engaged  servants  at  each  dis- 
trict every  year,  but  this  book  did  not  show  how  those  servants 
were  employed  at  the  different  stations  so  as  to  know  in  what 
way  they  had  been  employed  throughout  the  whole  year. 

Int.  71. — Did  the  books  of  the  post  at  Vancouver,  which 
you  kept,  show  in  what  particular  labor  the  servants  at  that 
post  were  employed? 

An%. — I  think  not. 

Int.  72. — Do  you  not  believe  that  accurate  copies  of  the 
general  books  kept  at  Vancouver  are  now  in  the  Company's 
office  in  London? 

Ans. — Until  1854  copies  of  the  general  accounts  were  sent 
out  in  each  year  to  York  Factory  in  Hudson's  Bay,  but  what 
became  of  them  afterwards  I  am  unable  to  say.  Some  of  them 
may  have  gone  to  England.  Since  1854  up  to  1860,  when  the 
Company  left  Vancouver,  copies  of  the  general  accounts  were 
sent  to  the  Hudson's  Bay  House,  London,  annually  by  express. 

Int.  73, — Where  were  you  when  Mr.  Grahame  and  the 
.Hudson's  Bay  Company  left  Vancouver? 

Ans. — I  mui?t  have  been  on  the  voyage  from  England  to 
Vancouver  Island.  When  I  got  to  Victoria  the  officers  of  the 
Company  were  all  there  except  Mr.  Grahame,  who  had  remained 
in  Oregon  for  some  purpose,  and  came  to  Victoria  about  a 
month  afterwards. 

Int.  74. — Have  you  not  stated  in  answer  to  interrogatory 
73,  of  the  previous  cross-examination,  that  "Mr.  Grahame 
on  withdrawing  from  Fort  Vancouver  transferred  all  the  pa- 
pers and  documents  of  the  place  to  me  at  Vancouver  Island?" 

Awi. — When  Mr.  Grahame  came  to  Victoria,  as  already 
mentioned,  a  month  after  my  arrival  there,  he  delivered  to  me 


A 


m- 


y 


57 

certain  papers  and  documents  relating  to  the  troubles  whi-;b 
had  taken  place  between  him  and  the  military  authorities  <i.t 
Fort  Vancover,  which  are  the  papers  and  documents  I  referred 
to  in  my  reply  to  the  cross-interrogatory  78.  I  took  charge 
of  these  papers  by  order  of  Mr.  Dallas,  who  was  then  the 
Company's  representative  at  Victoria. 

Int.  76. — Did  you  not  answer  to  interrogatory  94,  of  your 
previous  cross-examination:  "Do  the  books  of  the  Company, 
now  at  Victoria,  show  all  the  business  operations  of  the  Com- 
pany in  all  its  branches  between  1842  and  1863,  at  the  sev- 
eral posts  south  of  49°?"  give  this  answer:  "Up  to  1860, 
all  the  accounts  were  at  Fort  Vancouver.  So  far  as  I  know 
they  extended  to  all  the  matters  mentioned  in  the  question. 
They  were  removed  to  Victoria,  and  so  far  as  I  know  there 
were  none  lost." 

An%. — I  made  that  answer,  as  I  do  now,  from  hearsay,  with- 
out a  personal  knowledge,  Ljing  away  at  the  time  the  Company 
left  Fort  Vancouver. 

Int.  76. — Who  told  you  that  all  the  accounts  were  at  Fort 
Vancouver  up  to  1860? 

An». — I  suppose  it  must  have  come  from  Mr.  Grahame,  from 
the  time  I  left  Vancouver  in  1858. 

Int.  77. — When  did  you  first  receive  as  a  part  of  your  sal- 
ary a  share  of  the  profits  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company? 

Ans. — My  interest  as  a  chief  trader  commenced  on  June  1, 
1846. 

Int.  78. — What  was  your  share  of  the  profits  the  first  year  ? 

Ant. — It  was  one  eighty-fifth  of  forty  hundredths  of  the 
profits  of  the  trade.  I  am  unable  to  state  the  amount  in 
money  as  my  papers  are  not  here. 

Int.  79. — How  long  time  usually  elapsed  after  the  annual 
accounts  were  closed  at  Vancouver  before  you  received  your 
share  of  the  profits? 

Ana. — My  first  dividend  for  the  year  already  mentioned, 
and  closing  on  the  31st  of  May,  1847,  was  made  to  me  in  Lon- 
don, as  on  the  1st  of  June,  1848.  Then  again  I  had  another, 
December  1  following ;  each  consecutive  year  afterwards  be- 
gan the  dividends  on  the  1st  of  June  following ;  then  again 


A4M.*l  #■•■■•• 


58 


December  Ist ;  and  so  they  ran  on  year  after  year,  half  yearly. 

Int.  80. — You  have  said  in  answer  to  interrogatory  10,  in 
your  principal  examination,  that  the  profits  of  that  trade, 
meaning  the  fur  trade  at  the  posts  in  Oregon  south  of  the 
forty-ninth  parallel  in  the  year  1840,  and  for  years  previously, 
averaged  more  than  i;7,000  per  annum  ;  on  what  knowledge 
did  you  make  that  statement? 

Ana. — On  my  knowledge  and  recollection  of  the  books  I 
used  to  keep,  and  afterwards  kept  by  Mr.  Lowe. 

Int.  81. — Did  the  books  kept  by  you  show  the  profits  of  the 
fur  trade? 

Ans. — The  books  showed  the  profits,  besides  which,  each  post 
every  year  paid  its  outlay  for  the  buildings  and  repairs  which 
the  books,  of  course,  did  not  show. 

Int.  82. — Did  the  books  show  the  profits  of  each  post  or 
district  ? 

Ans. — The  books  showed  the  profits  of  each  post  in  their 
combined  form  of  posts  or  districts. 

Int.  83. — Did  the  copies  of  the  books  sent  to  York  Factory 
show  the  profits  of  each  post  or  district  ? 

Ana. — So  far  as  I  remember  they  did. 

Int.  84. — Can  you  make  any  more  definite  statement  of  the 
amount  of  the  profits  of  the  Company  than  you  have  aire  dy 
made? 

An8. — I  could  not  very  well  do  so  from  memory.  If  I  could 
see  the  books  I  could. 

Int.  85. — During  what  year  previous  to  1846  was  the  fur 
trade  south  of  the  forty-ninth  parallel  the  most  profitable,  and 
what  year  was  it  least  profitable  ?  , 

Ana. — I  could  not  answer  that  from  memory  without  seeing 
the  books. 

Int.  86. — When  was  it  more  than  .£7,000,  and  when  less  ? 

Ana. — I  could  not  say  without  looking  at  the  books. 

Int.  87. — What  were  the  profits  in  1846? 
.    Ana. — I  could  not  answer  from  memory. 

Int.  88. — Was  there  a  profit  on  the  trade  of  the  posts  south 
of  the  forty-ninth  parallel  in  1846  ? 

Ana. — Yes,  there  was  a  profit  in  1846. 


69 


Int.  89.  Was  there  not  some  year  previous  to  1846  when 
there  were  no  profits  from  these  posts  ? 

Ans. — There  was  no  year  between  1889  and  1846  on  which 
there  was  not  a  profit. 

Int.  90. — Did  not  the  profits  of  the  Company  from  these 
posts  decrease  annually  from  1889  to  1846  ? 

Ans. — There  may  have  been  a  decrease,  but  the  average 
profit  on  the  whole  will  amount  to  more  than  jB7,000  per 
annum. 

Int.  91. — Did  not  these  profits  gradually  decrease  after  1846  ? 

Ana. — The  profits  after  1846  kept  up  pretty  well  for  some 
years.  I  left  the  country  in  January,  1847,  and  returned  in 
September,  1858,  by  which  time  the  annual  profits  had  got  to 
be  very  low.  There  was  trouble  with  the  Indians  of  the  Wal- 
la-Walla country  in  the  winter  of  1847-8,  when  the  late  Dr. 
Whitman  and  his  amiable  wife  were  murdered  by  the  Indians 
and  their  mission  at  Waiiletpu  was  destroyed.  An  Indian  war 
followed,  and  spread  trouble  all  over  that  country,  making  its 
influence  felt  as  far  up  as  Fort  Bois6  and  Fort  Hall.  Some 
two  or  three  years  afterwards  Dr.  Dart  made  his  appearance 
in  Oregon  as  Superintendent  of  Indian  Affairs,  with  instruc- 
tions from  the  Commissioner  of  Indian  Affairs  at  Washington 
city  not  to  allow  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  to  trade  with 
Indians  in  his  superiptendency.  After  that,  in  December, 
1853,  the  late  Isaac  I.  Stevens,  then  Governor  of  Washington 
Territory  and  Superintendent  of  Indian  Affairs,  directed  Mr. 
Ogden,  as  representing  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  to  stop 
trading  with  the  Indians  six  months  from  January  1,  1864,  in 
any  portion  of  Washington  Territory.  This  was  followed,  in 
the  year  1855-6,  by  a  war  with  the  Indians,  known  as  the 
Yakama  Indian  war,  during  which  the  Company  had  to  aban- 
don their  posts  at  Walla-Walla  or  Nez  Perces,  Fort  Hall,  and 
Fort  Boise,  and  finally  the  Indians  in  different  parts  of  Wash- 
ington Territory,  some  time  in  1856,  were  removed  to  reserva- 
tions, leaving  the  Company  no  Indians  to  trade  with,  except 
at  their  stations  at  Fort  Colvile,  the  Kootenay  and  Flatheads. 
This  statement  will  at  once  account  for  the  falling  off  of  the 
Company's  fur  trade  at  the  posts  mentioned,  which  occurred 


^J. 


>^-^  **-**♦  .^..,^,^.«^, 


♦  r,       .**Vm 


I 


i 


k 


•  m 


h 


60 

not  in  consequence  of  any  fault  of  the  Company,  but  owing  to 
the  want  of  that  protection  from  the  United  States  Govern- 
ment which  they  had  a  right  to  look  for  under  the  treaty  of 
1846. 

Int.  92. — Wou'u  it  not  appear  from  the  books  when  each 
post  ceased  tc  be  profitable,  or  how  profitable  it  was  when  the 
business  c  /nnection  of  the  Company  with  each  post  ceased  ? 

Ana.-  —The  books  ought  to  show  it. 

Int.  93. — Have  you  any  knowledge  in  regard  to  the  profits 
of  the  Company  in  various  years  since  1839  other  than  you 
obtained  from  the  books  ? 

Ans. — So  far  as  regards  the  years  between  1839  and  1846, 
I  have  been  talking  about  the  annual  average  profits  from  my 
memory  of  the  books.  As  to  the  profits  after  1846,  I  have 
been  talking  generally,  having  been  absent  from  the  country 
until  1853. 

Int.  94.  Did  you  not  make  your  answer  to  interrogatory  91 
from  information  derived  from  others?  i 

An8. — The  information  regarding  the  Indian  war  of  1847-8, 
and  of  Dr.  Dart's  instructions,  I  had  from  others.  I  was  in 
the  country  when  the  late  Governor  Stevens  sent  his  orders, 
in  writing,  to  the  late  Mr.  P.  S.  Ogden,  and  also  during  the 
Yakama  Indian  war,  and  the  removal  of  the  Indians  to  reser- 
vations. ^ 

,'  March  18,  1867,  Resumed. 

Int.  95. — Were  the  orders  of  Dart  and  Governor  Stevens 
ever  enforced  ?  - 

Ans. — So  far  as  the  orders  of  Governor  Stevens  were  con- 
cerned, I  always  considered  them  as  in  force,  never  having 
been  rescinded.  In  the  case  of  Dr.  Dart  I  am  unable  to  say 
whether  they  were  enforced  or  not. 

Int.  96. — Were  the  orders  of  Governor  Stevens  ever  en- 
forced ? 

Ans. — Of  course  tbey  must  have  been  enforced,  by  removal 
of  the  Indians  to  the  reservations  which  was  eventually  done 
by  his  orders,  preventing,  as  I  have  already  said,  from  that 


li  ! 


m. 


ever  en- 


date,  any  trade  with  the  Indians  in  Washington  Territory, 
except  at  the  posts  of  Colville,  Kootenay  and  Flatheads. 
Int.  97. — Were  the  orders  enforced  in  any  other  way  ? 
An8. — I  dt.  not  know  that  they  were ;  but  the  effect  of  such 
standing  orders  on  the  Company's  trade  was,  I  conceive,  most 
disastrous,  as  they  never  knew  from  one  day  to  another  what 
was  going  to  come  next. 

Int.  98. — Could  not  the  Company  have  re-occupied  Forts 
Walla- Walla,  Boisfe,  and  Hall  after  the  close  of  the  war  in 
1855-6  ? 

Ans. — The  war  with  the  Indians  did  not  close  until  late  in 
the  summer  of  1858,  when  General  Wright,  with  a  large  com- 
mand of  regulars,  crossed  Snake  river  and  had  quite  a  fight 
with  the  Indians  in  the  Spokane  country.  This  closing  battle 
had  not  taken  place  when  I  left  Fort  Vancouver  in  June,  1858. 
I  am,  therefore,  positive  that  the  Company  c-ald  not  have 
reoccupied  any  of  the  stations  at  Walla- Walla,  jioise,  and  Fort 
Hall  with  anything  like  safety  of  life  and  property.  After 
that,  between  1858  and  1860,  it  is  probable  that  the  same 
difficulties  existed  still,  though  I  cannot  say  so  of  my  own 
knowledge.  It  would  have  been  of  no  use,  even  if  the  Com- 
pany could  have  gone  back  to  those  posts,  after  the  Indians 
had  been  removed  from  their  hunting  grounds  to  reservations, 
as  there  would  have  been  no  Indians  to  trade  with. 

Int.  99. — Did  not  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  occupy  and 
trade  at  the  posts  of  Walla-Walla,  Boisfe,  and  Hall  for  six 
months  or  a  year  after  the  order  of  Governor  Stevens  should 
have  taken  effect,  if  enforced? 

Ans. — I  think  the  Company  did  so. 

Int.  100. — Did  they  not  occupy  them  and  trade  with  the 
Indians  until  they  were  obliged  to  flee  from  fear  of  the  Indians  ? 

At.       -I  believe  so. 

mt.  101. — Did  the  Company  ever  intend  to  abandon  those 
posts,  or  stop  trading  with  the  Indians  on  account  of  Governor 
Stevens'  order  ? 

Ans.—l  think  not. 

Int.  102. — How  far  was  the  scene  of  the  battle  in  the  Spo- 
kane country  from  Walla- Walla,  Boisfe,  and  Hall  ? 


62 


Ans. — The  battle-field  was  at  a  distance  from  either  of  those 
establishments,  but  the  whole  section  of  country  had  continued 
in  a  very  disturbed  state  from  the  commencement  of  the  war 
in  1855,  and  it  was  not  safe  for  small  and  detached  parties  to 
travel  among  the  natives  for  probably  hundreds  of  miles  in  cer- 
tain directions,  taking  the  Company's  post  at  Walla-Walla  as 
the  centre  ? 

Int.  103. — Do  you  not  know  that  the  reservations  of  land 
were  set  off  to  the  Indians  to  afford  them  permanent  homes, 
and  that  they  not  only  could  hunt  on  these  lands  but  in  other 
parts  of  the  country,  and  wer*  as  free  to  sell  their  furs  as 
ever,  to  whom  they  pleased  ? 

Ans. — I  have  no  doubt  the  removal  of  the  Indians  to  the 
reservations  was  done  with  the  best  intentions,  but  so  far  as  I 
know  the  Indians  once  on  the  reservations  are  not  allowed  to 
trade  and  traflSc  with  everybody  that  comes  along,  being  under 
the  control  of  oflScers  at  the  different  reservations,  who  pre- 
vent as  much  as  possible  anything  like  a  general  intercourse 
between  the  Indians  and  the  Avhites. 

Int.  104. — In  what  particular  service  are  you  now  employed 
as  an  officer  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  ? 

^Ans. — My  principal  duty  at  present  is  in  Washington,  look- 
ing after  the  proceedings  going  on  before  the  Commissioners 
in  this  case. 

Int.  105. — Were  you  not  telegraphed  for  at  Montreal  to 
come  to  Washington  and  go  to  Charlotte,  North  Carolina,  to 
attend  the  examination  of  Admiral  Wilkes? 

Ans. — I  am  not  aware  that  I  was  telegraphed  for  to  come 
to  Washington  from  Montreal  to  attend  the  examination  of 
Admiral  Wilkes,  at  Charlotte,  in  Nox-th  Carolina.  But  I  did 
go  from  Montreal  to  that  place  and  was  present  when  Admiral 
Wilkes  was  examined. 

Int.  lOG. — Did  you  not  at  Montreal  receive  a  telegram  from 
one  of  the  counsel  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  that  Ad- 
miral Wilkes  was  ready  to  be  examined,  or  would  be  examined 
on  a  certain  day  ?  » 

Am. — I  did  receive  such  telegram. 


63 


Int.  107. — How  long  did  you  remain  at  Montreal  after 
receiving  this  telegram  ? 

Ana. — About  three  full  days. 

Int.  108. — Did  you  not  telegraph  back  to  the  counsel  of 
the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  at  Washington,  to  the  effect  that 
you  would  come  to  the  United  States  to  be  present  at  the 
examination  of  Admiral  Wilkes  ? 

Ans. — I  did  telegraph  back  in  reply  to  the  counsel  men- 
tioned, from  which  he  might  have  inferred  that  I  wished  to  be 
present,  but  in  the  telegram  itself  I  am  not  aware  that  I  either 
talked  of  the  admiral  or  his  examination  either. 

Int.  109.^Did  you  not  at  Charlotte,  during  the  examina- 
tion of  Admiral  Wilkes,  both  in  the  room  during  the  examina- 
tion and  in  and  out  of  the  room  at  other  times,  consult  with 
the  counsel  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  in  regard  to  the 
cross-examination  of  the  admiral  ? 

Ana. — I  believe  I  did  so,  out  of  the  room,  certainly  ;  but  in 
the  room,  while  the  cross-examination  was  going  on,  I  have 
no  recollection  to  have  said  much,  if  anything. 

Int.  110. — Have  you  not  been  present,  and  have  you  not 
desired  to  be  present,  at  the  examination  of  various  other  wit- 
nesses of  the  United  States  in  this  case  since  January  last  ? 

Ana. — I  have  been  present  of  my  own  desire. 

Int.  111. — Have  you  not  consulted  with  the  counsel  of  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company,  during  these  examinations,  in  regard 
to  the  examination  and  cross-examination  of  the  United  States 
witnesses  ? 

Ana. — Well,  I  am  not  aware  that  I  asked  any  questions 
myself,  but  the  counsel  for  the  Company  has  occasionally 
asked  me  for  information  while  such  proceedings  were  going 
on. 

Int.  112. — Has  not  the  counsel  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Com- 
pany desired  that  you  should  be  present  at  these  examina- 
tions ? 

Ana. — There  were  times  when  he  has  asked  mo  to  bo  pres- 
ent, but  not  always. 

Int.  113. — Did  not  he  (the  counsel  of  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company)  on  last  Wednesday,  when  the  examination  for  that 


'64 


r<^ 


I. 


day  was  finished,  consult  with  you  as  to  whether  it  was  better 
or  not  to  send  copies  of  your  testimony  of  each  day  to  Judge 
Day,  senior  counsel  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  ? 

An9. — I  remember  he  said  something  to  me  about  it,  but  I 
don't  recollect  what  he  proposed  to  do. 

Int.  114. — Are  you  not  really  here  acting  as  client  in  this 
case? 

Ans. — I  am  here  not  as  client,  but  as  a  chief  factor  of  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company. 

Int.  115. — Are  you  not  here  as  an  agent  of  that  Company, 
to  look  out  after  their  interests  in  this  case  ? 

Ans. — I  suppose  I  am. 

Int.  116. — Under  whose  direction  or  orders  are  you  here  ? 

An». — My  orders  come  from  the  Hudson's  Bay  House  in 
London. 

Int.  117. — When  did  you  receive  these  orders  ? 

An%. — I  left  London  on  the  28th  of  October,  1864,  previous 
to  which  I  received  my  orders.  Since  that  I  have  occasion- 
ally had  communications  with  the  House. 

Int.  118. — Have  you  not  a  distinct  pecuniary  interest  in 
whatever  money  or  moneys  the  Commissioners  may  award  in 
this  case  ? 

Ans. — Nothing  more  than  my  chief  factor's  interest  gives 
me. 

Int.  119. — What  part  of  the  amount  awarded  will  this  in- 
terest give  you  ? 

An%. — I  am  unable  to  say.  I  am  entitled,  no  doubt,  to  the 
two  eighty-fifths  of  forty  hundredths  of  anything  that  may  be 
divided. 

Int.  120. — Do  you  mean  from  this  to  intimate  that  this 
award  will  be  divided  among  all  the  officers  of  the  Company 
at  the  time  of  division,  in  the  same  way  as  the  ordinary  profits 
of  the  trade? 

Ans. — I  believe  so. 

Int.  121. — Do  you  know  how  this  disposition  will  be  made  ? 

An%. — I  know  nothing  further  than  what  I  have  already 
stated  as  my  belief. 

Int.  122. — On  what  knowledge  is  this  belief  founded  ? 


fli-   K 


65 


Ans. — I  have  no  particular  knowledge  about  it. 

Int.  123. — Did  you  not  assist  the  counsel  of  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company  to  prepare  the  memorial  which  was  presented 
April  17,  1865,  a  printed  copy  of  which  is  now  shown  you  ? 

An8. — I  believe  I  did  so. 

Int.  124. — Where  was  this  memorial  prepared  ? 

Ans. — In  Canada,  I  think. 

Int.  125. — Do  you  not  know  ? 

Ans. — Yes  ;  it  was  there. 

Int.  126. — On  what  authority  or  information  was  this  part 
of  the  memorial  made,  quoting  from  page  10 : 

"The  post  at  Vancouver,  so-called,  consisting  of  a  stock- 
aded fort,  with  dwelling-houses,  store-houses,  school-houses, 
houses  for  servants,  shops,  barns,  and  other  out-buildings,  with 
a  stockade  and  bastions,  erected  at  great  cost,  and  of  the  value 
of  fifty-five  thousand  pounds,  (^£55,000"?) 

Ans. — I  may  have  had  something  to  do  with  it. 

Int.  127. — Have  you  not,  since  your  answer  to  interroga- 
tory 125,  consulted  with  the  counsel  of  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company  in  regard  to  your  answer  to  interrogatory  126,  or 
other  matters  connected  with  this  examination? 

Ans. — I  did  speak  to  the  counsel.  The  answer  is  entirely 
my  own. 

Int.  128. — Did  you  not  speak  to  the  counsel  in  a  whisper, 
and  did  he  not  reply  so? 

Ans. — Yes. 

Int.  129. — Do  you  not  know  that  you  had  something  to  do 
with  the  preparation  of  tlie  memorial? 

Ans. — I  had  something  to  do  with  it,  of  course. 

Int.  130. — Was  it  not  on  your  information,  and  with  your 
advice  and  consent,  that  the  passage  quoted  in  the  interroga- 
tory 126  formed  part  of  the  memorial? 

Ans. — I  don't  know  how  far  my  advice  went  in  the  matter. 
Of  course  I  have  no  doubt  the  information  given  by  me  had 
much  to  do  with  it.     I  consented,  of  course. 

Int.  131. — Did  you  not  yourself  fix  a  value  on  the  property 
described  in  interrogatory  126,  and,ofi"er  this  estimate  to  the 
counsel  ? 


5 


66 


Ans. — I  may  have  done  so. 

Int.  132. — Do  you  not  know  that  you  did  so? 

Ans. — I  can't  be  positive  about  it,  though  I  believe  I  did 
figure  it  out. 

Int.  ]  33. — Was  your  estimate  higher  or  lower  than  j£55,000  ? 

A  .<s. — Something  higher,  I  think. 

Int.  134. — Why  was  your  estimate  cut  down? 

Ans. — I  do  not  know. 

Int.  135. — How  much  was  it  cut  down  ? 

Ans. — I  do  not  remember. 

Int.  136. — Do  you  distinctly  remember  that  it  was  cut  down  ? 

Ans. — That  is  the  impression  on  my  mind. 

Int.  137. — Was  it  against  your  desire  that  it  was  cut  down? 

Ans. — I  made  no  objections  about  it. 

Int.  138. — Who  else  was  consulted  as  to  the  value  which 
should  be  put  on  this  property  ? 

Ans. — There  may  have  been  others  besides  me  consulted ;  I 
don't  remember  of  any. 

Int.  139. — From  what  books  did  you  figure  out  the  value  of 
this  property  ? 

Ans. — My  figuring  out  was  made  pretty  much  from  mem- 
ory, and  from  knowledge  of  the  place. 

Int.  140. — What  do  you  mean  by  knowledge  of  the  place  ? 

Ans. — Personal  knowledge  of  Fort  Vancouver  and  its  im- 
provements, when  I  was  there  or  thereabouts,  at  the  time 
when  this  valuation  was  put  upon  the  place. 

Int.  141. — When  you  speak  of  knowledge,  do  you  mean 
knowledge  of  the  cost,  or  knowledge  of  what  the  buildings 
would  sell  for? 

Ans. — I  speak  of  knowledge  of  its  value  to  the  Company's 
business. 

Int.  142. — Can  you  tell  us  by  what  arithmetical  process  you 
arrived  at  vour  estimate? 

V 

Ans. — The  fort  was  a  very  large  establishment.  The  en- 
closure of  750  feet  front,  containing  a  great  many  buildings 
inside.  Outside,  at  hand,  there  were  other  buildings,  stores 
and  dwelling-houses,  a  chiyrch  and  school-houses,  &c.  There 
was  a  farm  there,  adjoining,  of  500  acres,  under  fence ; 
through  all  of  which  roads  were  made,  and  barns  and  stables 


67 

erected.  The  place  itself  was  of  great  importance  as  the  cen- 
tre of  trade,  and  was  in  very  thorough  order.  My  own  esti- 
mate of  its  value  would  be  all  of  j£60,000. 

Int.  143. — Has  this  estimate  of  £60,000  no  regard  to  the 
cost  of  the  post? 

Ans. — I  have  said  nothing  about  the  cost  of  the  post ;  I  talk 
of  its  value  to  the  business. 

Int.  143J. — Do  you  mean  to  say,  that  in  your  estimate  novr, 
and  in  your  estimate  for  the  Counsel,  which  was  afterwards 
cut  down  and  put  in  the  memorial,  you  did  not  at  all  consider 
the  cost  of  the  post  at  Vancouver  ? 

An8. — I  may,  or  may  not  have  thought  of  the  cast ;  I  am 
talking  now  to  the  business. 

Int.  144. — Did  your  pi-esent  estimate  and  the  estimate  in 
the  memorial  have  no  regard  to  the  saleable  value  of  the  post? 

Ans. — In  1846,  at  which  time  I  put  this  valuation,  there 
was  no  party  or  parties  in  that  country  who  had  the  means  of 
buying  such  a  place  had  it  been  for  sale,  therefore  I  cannot 
speak  of  its  saleable  value,  and  I  have  not  so  spoken. 

Int.  145. — What  do  you  estimate  to  have  been  the  cost  of 
the  property,  described  in  the  passage  of  the  memorial, 
quoted  in  interrogatory  126  ? 

Ans. — I  am  unable  to  divic  the  premises  at  Fort  Vancou- 
ver. That  is  to  say,  if  I  attempted  to  give  an  estimate,  it 
would  be  for  the  whole  establishment  at  Fort  Vancouver,  in- 
.  eluding  mills  and  all  other  improvements,  dairies,  &c.  More- 
over, any  estimate  that  I  now  make  would  be  a  very  incomplete 
one,  and  would  refer  only  to  the  outlay  which  I  believe  was 
incurred  while  I  was  about  Fort  Vancouver,  between  the  years 
1839  and  1846,  in  all  seven  years.  My  estimate  of  such  out- 
lay is  as  follows : 

Wages  for  150  men  at  $100  per  annum,        -        -       $15,000 
Rations  for  150  men  at  20  cents  per  diem,  for  one 


year. 


For  seven  years. 


10,950 

25,950 
7 

$181,650 


68 

The  150  men  referred  to  were  nearly  all  brought  from 
abroad,  some  from  England,  via  Cape  Horn,  others  from  the 
Orkney  Islands,  who  came  by  Hudson's  Bay  and  crossed  the 
Rocky  Mountains,  others  again  from  Canada  and  Red  River, 
and  from  the  Sandwich  Islands,  who  were  brought  at  great 
expense,  averaging  $100  each  man,  say  -  -  -  $15,000 
The  amount  brought  forward,  ...         -     181,650 


Value  of  material  us'ed  in  the  different  structures 
about  the  place,  machinery  'i  the  mills,  &c., 
&c.,  say 


196,650 


There  Avere  also  employed  two  clerks  as  overseers, 
whose  Avagcs  and  board  would  amount  to  $1,250 
each — $2,500  per  annum  for  seven  years,    - 


75,000 
$271,650 


17,500 

$289,150 


Examination  resumed  March  19,  1867. 

Int.  146 — Do  you  mean  to  say  that  $289,150  is  your  esti- 
mate of  the  cost  of  all  the  buildings  and  improvements  at  and 
around  Vancouver,  including  the  farm-houses,  fencing,  and 
mills? 

Ans. — My  estimate  of  that  sum  has  only  reference,  as  near 
as  I  can  judge,  to  the  outlay  incurred  upon  the  fort  and  sur- 
rounding improvements  between  the  years  1839  and  1846. 
Previous  to  1839  there  had  been  a  large  expenditure  of  money 
upon  the  fort  and  the  improvements  round,  of  which  I  have 
no  personal  knowledge,  neither  am  I  able  to  give  any  estimate 
of  the  same. 

Int.  147. — Do  you  mean  to  say  that  between  the  years  1839 
and  1846,  $289,150  was  spent  by  the  company  upon  the  fort 
and  surrounding  improvements  ? 

Ans. — To  the  best  of  my  knowledge  and  belief  that  outlay 
had  been  made. 


69 

Int.  148. — If  this  outlay  had  been  made  during  that  time, 
will  not  the  books  of  the  company  show  that  such  an  amount 
has  been  put  down  to  profit  and  loss  in  the  accounts  kept  at 
Fort  Vancouver? 

Ann. — The  balance  of  the  profit  and  loss  account  has  been 
affected  no  doubt  by  the  effect  of  this  outlay,  whatever  it  may 
have  been,  in  each  year.  But  the  account  itself  will  not  show 
how  the  money  has  been  expended. 

Int.  149. — Does  not  the  balance  sheet  or  profit  and  loss  ac- 
count of  each  post  show  on  the  debtor  side,  as  expenses  or 
losses,  these  items  among  others:  "Goods  sent  to  the  post, 
food  and  supplies  sent  to  the  post,  and  wages  paid  to  the 
engaged  people  at  the  post?" 

An«. — So  far  as  my  recollection  goes  of  the  accounts,  the 
balance  sheet  of  the  different  posts  does  show  these  entries  on 
the  debit  side. 

Int.  150. — Do  you  mean  to  say  that  150  engaged  servants 
of  the  company  were  employed  for  seven  full  years,  beginning 
with  the  autumn  of  the  year  1839,  in  making  permanent 
improvements  at  and  around  the  post  at  Vancouver? 

Ans, — There  may  have  been  a  greater  number  sometimes 
and  fewer  at  others,  but,  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge  and 
belief,  I  think  that  number  was  so  employed  on  an  average 
one  year  to  another. 

Int.  151. — Were  not  many,  if  not  all  of  the  answers  to  your 
examination  in  chief,  at  the  city  of  Montreal,  written  out  be- 
fore the  examination,  on  consultation  with  counsel  of  the 
JIudson's  Bay  Company? 

Ans. — Some  time  in  the  second  week  of  March,  1866,  or 
thereabouts,  Judge  Day,  then  in  Washington  city,  told  me 
that  he  had  proposed  to  Mr.  Cushing's  representative  that  my 
deposition  should  be  taken  before  him,  when  he  replied  some- 
thing to  the  effect  that  he  could  not  cross-examine  me,  for  the 
reason  that  Mr.  Choate,  of  New  York,  had  been  retained  to 
attend  to  it.  Judge  Day  shortly  afterwards  left  for  Montreal, 
where  I  followed  him,  as  he  was  anxious  to  be  within  reach 
when  my  testimony  was  taken.  As  far  as  I  remember,  Judge 
Day  gave  me  the  questions  in  my  deposition,  when  I  wrote  off 


••M 


4 


•Mu 


"•Dm 


TO 


H 


the  answers,  returning  both  questions  and  answers  to  Judge 
Day,  and  I  may  have  consulted  him  about  njy  answers,  but  I 
have  no  recollection  about  it.  The  deposition,  questions,  and 
answers,  were  then  copied,  and  Mr.  Choate  sent  for,  who,  on 
his  arrival,  proceeded  to  cross-examine  me.  (The  United  States 
object  to  the  first  members  of  Mr.  Mactavish's  answer  to  the 
151st  interrogatory,  beginning  "Some  time,"  &c.,  and  ending, 
"to  it,"  as  being  hearsay,  irresponsive  to  the  interrogatory, 
and  impertinent  in  law.) 

Int.  152. — Were  all  the  questions  given  to  you  at  once  by 
Judge  Day  ? 

Ans, — Probably  nearly  all  of  them  were.  They  were,  I 
think,  either  copied  by  a  young  man  employed  for  the  purpose, 
or  written  at  the  judge's  dictation,  and  then  brought  to  me; 
they  may  have  been  brought  in  two  or  three  instalments. 

Jnt.  153 — Were  your  answers  all  sent  to  Judge  Day  at  one 
time? 

Ans. — I  think  they  were. 

Int.  154. — Did  you  not,  at  some  time  after  your  answers 
were  sent  to  Judge  Day,  alter  them  in  consultation  with  him, 
either  by  leaving  out  certain  parts  of  them,  or  by  adding  to 
them? 

Ans. — I  may  have  done  so,  but  I  have  no  recollection  of  it 
now. 

Int.  155. — Do  you  not  believe  that  you  did  so? 

Ans. — I  have  no  particular  belief  about  it.  I  have  no 
recollection. 

Int.  156. — Do  you  recollect  whether  Judge  Day  was  pres- 
ent at  your  cross-examination? 

Ans, — So  far  as  I  remember,  Mr.  Choate  had  mc  all  to  him- 
self while  cross-examining  me,  and  Judge  Day  came  into  the 
room  and  re-commenced  my  examination  in  chief,  and  I  think 
remained  there  until  Mr.  Choate  closed  his  final  cross-exam- 
ination. 

Int.  157. — How  long  and  how  many  men  did  it  take  to 
build  each  of  the  buildings,  which  in  your  answer  to  the  40th 
interrogatory  of  this  cross-examination  you  say  were  built 
while  you  were  at  Vancouver? 


I 


lg,^,^^llgllllllllg^ 


71 


Ana. — I  can't  answer  the  question.     I  don't  remember. 
Int.  158. — In  what  year  was  the  stockade  fence  renewed? 
Arts. — Some  of  it  was  renewed  in  the  autumn  of  1842,  and 
by  the  spring  of  1845  the  remainder  of  the  entire  enclosure 
had  been  renewed. 

Int.  150. — How  long  a  time  would  it  take  150  men  to  renew 
this  stockade? 

Ans. — I  hardly  know.  It  would  depend  very  much  on 
their  ability  to  do  such  work,  and  on  the  proximity  of  the 
timber  suitable  for  pickets. 

Int.  160. — Considering  the  ability  of  the  servants  of  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company,  and  the  proximity  of  the  timber  for 
the  pickets,  how  long  do  you  believe  it  would  have  taken  150 
men  to  have  renewed  the  pickets? 

Ans. — The  Company  had  a  great  many  hands  employed  at 
Vancouver  and  its  surroundings,  but  there  were  very  few  of 
them  who  could  be  called  skilled  hands  with  the  axe  or  tools 
of  any  kind.  The  labor  was  of  the  very  cheapest  kind,  and 
the  hands  changed  very  often;  men  going  away  and  others 
coming  in  their  place.  I  never  saw  anything  like  150  men 
working  at  one  job.  They  were  scattered  about,  working  here, 
there,  and  everywhere,  so  that  it  is  impossible  for  me  to  say 
how  long  they  would  have  taken  to  ron  w  this  picket  fence. 
The  timber  for  the  pickets  was  not  by  any  means  found  close 
at  hand,  and  if  I  remember  right  many  of  the  logs,  which  were 
very  choice,  were  cut  at  a  great  distance  from  the  f.  it,  and 
had  then  to  be  dragged  out  by  oxen  to  the  river-side  and  rafted 
down  the  river,  and  hauled  by  oxen  up  to  the  fort. 

Int.  161. — What  was  the  average  number  of  men  per  day 
that  were  employed  in  renewing  the  pickets? 

Ans. — I  could  not  answer  that  question. 

Int.  162. — When  were  the  pickets  first  erected  ? 

Ans. — I  cannot  say. 

Int.  163. — Why  were  they  renewed? 

Ans. — I  presume  they  had  decayed. 

Int.  164. — Of  what  kind  of  wood  were  the  old  pickets? 

Ans. — Principally  pine,  probably  with  some  cedar  among 
them. 


I'm 


i 


>., 


i*,..,.*u>^*i*rji.'iri-i>;-i\»^;i-t»ifc".l''*"w*'**'W  £  .*-'•*'- .  •  -"-*~ »' 


.^ 


72 

Int.  165. — Of  what  timber  were  the  new  pickets? 

Ans. — I  think  they  were  much  the  same. 

Int.  166. — Were  not  the  old  pickets  all  renewed  before  they 
had  been  standing  twenty  years? 

An». — It  iH  probable  they  had. 

Int.  167, — Of  .what  particular  value  was  the  picket  to  the 
Company? 

Ana. — Defence  and  protection  from  the  Indians,  who"  were 
numerous  and  troublesome  enough,  as  I  understood,  when  Fort 
Vancouver  was  first  established. 

Int.  168. — Was  there  ever  any  attack  of  the  Indians  made 
on  Fort  Vancouver? 

Ans. — The  nearest  to  an  attack  by  the  Indiana  took  place 
in  the  spring  of  1856,  when  the  Indians,  during  the  Yakama 
war,  watched  their  opportunity  when  General  Wright,  then  in 
command  of  the  9th  regiment  of  infantry,  had  marched  with 
his  troops  from  the  Dalles  on  his  way  to  Walla- Walla,  or,  as 
it  is  now  called,  Wallula.  The  Indians,  observing  that  the 
troops  were  gone,  maue  their  appearance  at  the  Cascade  port- 
age, where  they  murdered  eighteen  people,  men,  women,  and 
children,  and  set  fire  to  nearly  all  the  buildings  of  the  settlers 
on  the  portage,  which  was  four  or  five  miles  in  length.  The 
people,  young  and  old,  were  sacrificed  at  the  upper  end  of  the 
portage.  The  settlers  at  the  lower  end  were  warned  of  what 
was  before  them,  and  they  made  their  escape  as  they  best 
could  down  the  river  with  boats  or  canoes,  or  anything  that 
could  float,  coming  on  to  Fort  Vancouver,  a  distance  of  forty 
miles  from  the  Cascades.  The  garrison  at  Vancouver  was 
then  in  command  of  Colonel  Morris,  of  the  4th  infantry.  That 
oflScer,  on  getting  the  information  of  what  had  happened  at 
the  Cascades,  acted  with  great  promptitude,  and  dispatched 
another  oflScer,  with  all  the  soldiers  he  could  muster,  by  steamer 
to  the  Cascades,  where  he  had  a  fight  with  the  Indians,  but 
was  unable  to  drive  them  out  of  the  position  they  held  there. 
The  news  of  this  outbreak  at  the  Cascades,  when  known 
through  the  country  on  the  north  side  of  the  Columbia, 
alarmed  all  the  settlers  very  much,  who  with  their  families  all 
flocked  into  Vancouver.     At  the  garrison  were  many  ladies 


f  ■'■*\,^  .* . 


73 


whose  husbands  were  officers  in  the  field,  and  many  of  them, 
with  much  anxiety  about  the  safety  of  the  garrison,  came 
down  for  safety  and  protection  to  the  Company's  fort,  which 
was  secure  from  any  Indian  attack.  For  months  afterwards 
women  and  children  from  the  town  of  Vancouver  slept  every 
night  in  the  fort  for  protection ;  all  which  shows  that  so  late 
as  the  year  185G  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company's  fort  at  Van- 
couver, with  its  pickets,  was  not  so  much  out  of  place,     i*^ 

Int.  1G9. — What  do  you  estimate  to  have  been  the  cost  of 
this  picket? 

Ans. — I  am  unable  to  answer  that  question. 

Int.  170. — What  do  you  estimate  to  have  been  its  value  to 
the  Company? 

Ans. — I  have  put  a  valuation  some  time  or  other,  but  I  for- 
get now  what  it  was. 

Int.  171. — Was  not  in  1846  the  improvements  outside  of  the 
pickets  at  Vancouver  of  more  value  than  those  within  ? 

Ana. — I  dare  say  they  were. 

Int.  172. — What  was  the  value  of  those  within? 

Ans. — I  really  cannot  say  now. 

Int.  173. — What  was  the  value  of  those  without? 

Ans. — I  am  equally  unable  to  answer  that  question. 

Int.  174. — What  was  the  cost  of  those  within? 

Ans. — I  am  unable  to  say. 

Int.  175. — What  was  the  cost  of  those  without? 

Ans. — I  cannot  say. 

Int.  176. — Can  you  estimate  how  many  men  were  employed 
and  how  long  they  were  employed  in  erecting  the  buildings 
within  the  picket?  .         - 

Ans. — I  am  unable  to  make  that  estimate. 

Int.  177. — Were  not  most  of  the  buildings  within  the  fort 
made  of  hewn  timber? 

Ans. — I  think  not. 

Int.  178. — What  ones  were  not  made  of  hewn  timber? 

Ans. — The  factor's  house,  the  office,  the  four  large  ware- 
houses, the  long  dwell! r.g-house,  the  kitchen,  the  magazine, 
and  there  may  have  been  more,  but  I  do  not  remember. 


I 


.  .T^umtm.H^»tt/e^ai-  -O.  ■■f--'-!:. 


.•.  j<«>»«*./»-j!«Ti~»'»c;;  »*•  -  ?A  •»•-• 


/ 


r 


Int.  179.  Of  what  were  these  buildings  enumerated  in  your 
last  answer  built  ? 

Ans. — They  were  built  up  between  the  uprights  of  sawn 
plank,  either  two  or  three  inches  thick,  except  the  kitchen, 
whi<.  I  was  a  frame  building,  and  the  powder  magazine,  which 
was  of  brick,  with  a  copper  door. 

March  20,  Examination  Resumed. 

Int.  180. — In  reply  to  interrogatory  151,  as  to  whether 
many,  if  not  all,  of  the  answers  to  your  examination-in-chief, 
at  Montreal,  were  written  out  before  the  examination,  on  con- 
sultation with  counsel  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  you 
proceed  to  state  in  substance  that  in  March,  186G,  or  there- 
abouts, Mr.  Day  proposed  to  Mr.  Cushing's  representative 
(?  Mr.  Stone)  that  your  deposition  should  be  taken  before  him, 
&c.  Had  not  your  deposition,  in  so  far  as  examination-in- 
chief,  been  taken  already  long  before  that,  say  in  the  previous 
month  of  January  ? 

Ans. — No;  I  think  not. 

(Mr.  Lander  objects  to  so  much  of  this  question  as  refers  to 
Mr.  Stone,  as  no  mention  has  been  made  of  Mr.  Stone  ?) 

Int.  181. — Do  you  remember  in  what  month  your  examina- 
tion-in-chief was  taken  ? 

Ans. — It  must  have  been  after  I  loft  here.  I  got  to  Montreal 
29th  March.  I  think  it  must  have  been  between  that  hue  and 
when  Mr.  Choate  ci'oss-examiaed  me. 

Int.  182. — Had  you  never,  previous  to  your  return  to 
Montreal,  about  the  last  of  March,  1806,  prepared  any  an- 
swers to  any  interrogations  as  a  witness  in  behalf  of  the  Hud- 
son's Bay  Company  ? 

Ans. — I  think  it  is  likely  I  did,  in  Washington,  in  the  Niiape 
of  notes,  in  preparation  of  my  expected  examination  i)efore 
Mr.  Cushing's  representative,  when  I  was  ready  to  give  my 
testimony  in  any  way  that  they  pleased. 

Int.  183. — Who  prepared  these  (juestions  that  you  an- 
swered ? 


..■^. 


75 


Ans. — I  don't  know  that  it  amounted  to  questioning;  it 
was  more  in  the  shape  of  consultation  with  Judge  Day  than 
anything  else. 

Int.  184. — Was  Judge  Day  in  Washington  at  the  time  ? 

Ans. — He  was. 

Int.  185. — Were  these  notes  and  answers  which  you  say 
were  made  in  consultation  with  Judge  Day  written  out  here 
in  Washington  ? 

Ans. — If  I  did  write  notes  or  answers  at  the  time,  they  must 
have  been  written  in  Washington. 

Int.  186. — Did  Judge  Day  carry  these  notes  and  answers 
home  with  Jiicri  ? 

Ans. — He  may  have  done  so  ;  I  dare  say  he  did. 

Int.  187. — Did  you  carry  them  home  with  you  ? 

Ans. — I  have  no  doubt  I  did  so,  if  the  judge  did  not. 

Int.  188. — Do  you  not  know  what  was  done  with  these  notes? 

Ans. — I  cannot  say ;  probably  they  were  torn  up. 

Int.  189. — Have  you  never  seen  them  since  you  gave  them 
to  Judge  Day  ? 

'Ans. — I  do  n'-'^  know  now  whether  he  took  them  or  I  took 
them.  If  I  took  them,  I  must  have  torn  them  up.  I  have  not 
got  them  now.  If  Judge  Day  took  them,  I  presume  they  have 
been  torn  up.  I  have  no  recollection  of  having  seen  them 
since. 

Int.  190. — Wl.en  do  you  last  remember  to  have  seen  them  ? 

Ans. — In  Washington,  I  suppose.  I  have  forgotten  all 
about  it. 

Int.  191. — Do  yon  not  remember  and  know  that  Judge  Day 
hi!  \  these  notes  in  his  possession  when  he  wrote  questions  to 
•■vhich  you  afterwards  gave  him  written  answers? 

Ans, — I  am  not  at  all  positive  about  that. 

Int.  192. — Did  nut  Mr.  Day,  under  date  of  January  3, 1866, 
notify  Mr.  Gushing  by  formal  notice  to  attend  the  examination 
of  witnesses  January  13,  1866,  at  Montreal  ? 

(Mr.  Lander  objects  to  this  question,  as  the  notices  are  the 
proper  evidence.') 

An.^. — I  have  no  knowledge  whatever  of  what  Mr.  Day 
wrote^  or  even  if  he  wrote  at  all. 


Nl 


,»»»U-ici^ -»■--.** 


<'.. 
^ 


iH  I'i 


i  'I 


L 


U' 


!      . 


76 

Int.  193. — Did  not  Mr.  Choate,  in  consequence  of  this 
notice,  go  to  Montreal,  expressly  as  special  counsel,  to  exam- 
ine you,  and  find  that  your  dcposition-in-chief  had  already 
been  completed  ? 

(Mr.  Lander  objects  to  so  much  of  this  interrogatory  as  as- 
sumes that  the  witness  knew  of  notice  being  sent.) 

An%. — The  first  time  I  had  the  pleasure  of  seeing  Mr.  Choate 
in  Montreal  was  about  the  middle  of  January,  1866,  when,  I 
think,  he  said  that  he  came  there  to  cross-examine  any  wit- 
nesses that  might  be  there.  There  was  nothing  in  readiness 
for  him  to  do,  although  I,  as  a  witness,  was  quite  ready  then 
and  there  to  give  my  testimony ;  but  at  that  luoment  Judge 
Day  had  gone  to  Boston  to  see  Mr.  Gushing,  and  could  not 
get  back  in  less  than  a  week.  I  could  not  very  well  be  ex- 
amined orally,  or  otherwise,  except  by  Judge  Day,  and  Mr. 
Choate,  not  caring  to  lose  so  much  time,  went  oif  to  New  York. 
The  next  time  I  saw  Mr.  Choate  in  Montreal  was  on  the  after- 
noon of  the  5th  or  6th  of  April,  1866,  after  my  return  from 
Washington,  when  my  deposition,  as  already  stated,  was  placed 
in  his  hands.  I  do  not  know  vho  sent  Mi  ^hoate  to 
Montreal. 

Examination  Resumed,  March  21. 

Int.  104. — With  reference  to  Mr.  Lander's  exception  ro  the 
introduction  of  Mr.  Stone's  name,  by  way  of  query,  i'lto  the 
180th  interrogatory,  please  to  state  whether  you  did  not  mean 
Mr.  Stone  by  the  phrase  "Mr.  Cushing's  representative,"  in 
your  answer  to  the  151st  interrogatory;  and,  if  not,  whom  you 
did  intend  or  understand  by  that  phrase? 

(Mr.  Lander  states  that  the  objection  was  not  to  tlie  intro- 
duction of  Mr.  Stone's  ;  .e  in  particular,  but  to  the  assump- 
tion that  the  witness  had  stated  that  it  was  Mr.  Stone.) 

Ans. — I  meant  no  one  in  particular.  I  did  not  see  the 
gentleman,  neither  have  I  any  recollection  of  asking  Judge 
Day  his  name. 

Int.  195. — Do  you  not  know  who  this  representative  was? 

Ans  — Not  at  that  time.     I  do  not  know  more  now  than  I 


I, 


>.«>»** 


77 


,'e  was 


did  then  of  who  it  was.  My  first  acquaintance  with  Mr.  Stone, 
as  representing  Mr.  Gushing,  must  have  taken  phice  after  my 
return  to  Washington  city  from  Montreal,  which  was  on  the 
21st  of  April,  18G6,  or  thereabouts. 

Int.  196. — Whom  do  you  mean  hy  the  same  phrase  in  your 
answer  to  interrogatory  182? 

Ans. — I  ought  to  have  said  Mr.  Gushing,  or  whoever  repre- 
sented him  for  the  United  States. 

Int.  197. — Who  was  his  representative  in  the  early  part  of 
1806,  when  you  were  in  Washington  ? 

Ans. — I  am  wholly  unable  to  say. 

Int.  198. — Please  to  look  at  the  paper  to  be  annexed  hereto 
und  marked  "A,"  and  state  whether  the  signature  affixed  is  or 
is  not  the  signature  of  Judge  Day  ? 

Ans. — I  believe  it  to  be  the  signature  of  Judge  D.-iy. 

Int.  199. — Who  were  the  witnesses  intended  to  be  examined 
under  this  notice  shown  to  you  marked  "A"? 

Ans. — I  cannot  say,  probably  I  was  one  of  thorn. 

Int.  200. — You  say  in  answer  to  the  19.'Jd  interrogatory, 
that  on  the  arrival  of  Mr.  Ghoate  at  Montreal.  April  r)th  or  6th, 
my  depiisition,  as  already  stated,  "was  pla'jod  in' bis  hands." 
In  response  to  which  interrogatory  had  you  previously  made 
this  statement? 

Ans. — By  my  deposition,  I  mean  my  examiiiation-in-chicf, 
the  queries  and  answers  to  wliicb,  on  the  arrival  of  Mr.  Clioate 
at  Montreal,  in  April,  were  placed  in  his  hands,  and  next 
morning  he  commenced  my  cross-examination.  What  1  meant 
by  placing  the  deposition  in  Mr.  Glioate's  hands,  was  that  he 
had  it  one  night  before  cross-examining  nie.  1  tlo  not  know 
that  I  detailed  this  in  my  reply  to  the  Ifilst  intcMTogalory. 

Lit.  2Ul. — At  what  time  was  your  dep(tsiti();i  placed  in  Mr. 
Glioate's  bamls,  April  ."jth  or  6th — acitually  written? 

Ans. — So  far  as  1  remember,  between  I  lie  29lh  of  March, 
1866,  and  the  5th  of  Ajtril  lullowing.  Mr.  (Jli(>at(!  arrived  on 
'he  afleriKxin  of  the  r)tli  oi  Otli. 

Int.  202. — Was  not  Mr.  Day  absent  from  Montreal  when 
Mr.  Ciioate  eanie  there  to  examino  you  in  January? 

Ans. — 1  beli4've  he  was. 


H  i\ 


]■ 


I 
I 


1     ^ 


.5 


78 

Int.  203. — T)irl  not  Mr.  Ritchie,  on  this  account,  decline  to 
allow  youi-  cro^s-exaoiination  to  proceed,  so  that  Mr.  Choate 
was  oMigcd  to  ret'jrn  to  New  York  without  accomplishing  the 
obioct  of  his  journey  to  Montreal? 

An8. — I  certainly  met  Mr.  Choate  for  the  first  time  at  Mr. 
Ritchie's  office,  but  I  never  was  aware  that  Mr.  Ritchie  had 
anything  to  do,  cither  Avith  bringing  Mr.  Choate  to  Montreal 
or  with  my  cross-examination  or  cxamination-in-chicf  cither. 
Int.  204.— Why  Jid  Mr.  Choate  return  to  New  York? 

Ans. — So  far  as  I  remember,  on  the  arrival  of  Mr.  Choate 
at  Montreal,  on  that  occasion,  Mr.  Ritchie  telegraphed  the 
fact  to  Judge  Day,  then  at  Boston  ;  when  the  judge  replied 
also  by  telegraph  that  he  could  not  very  well  return  for  iiome 
days,  probably  a  week ;  on  learning  which,  as  riotjiiug  could 
be  done  during  Mr.  Day's  absence,  Mr.  Choate,  to  the  best 
of  my  recollection,  being  unwilling  to  lose  so  much  time  in 
Montreal,  made  up  his  mind  to  return  to  New  York  at  once, 
which  he  accordingly  did. 

Int.  205. — Had  not  your  examination-in-chief  been  already 
taken  at  this  time,  and  was  it  not  shown  to  Mr.  Choate? 

Ans. — My  examination-in-chief  was  certainly  not  taken 
then,  and  could  not  have  been  shown  to  Mr.  Choate  on  his  ar- 
rival in  Montreal,  in  January,  1866. 

Int.  206. — Wore  you  ready  to  be  examined  on  the  13th  of 
January,  1866,  at  Montreal  ? 

Ans. — I  was  in  Montreal  then,  and  prepared  to  appear  as  a 
witness  when  called. 

Int.  207. — Was  Judge  Day  in  Montreal  on  the  13th  day  of 
January,  1866  ? 

Ans. — 1  am  unable  to  say. 

Int.  208. — ^Were  there  any  other  witnesses  of  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company  there  besides  yourself,  ready  to  be  examined? 

Ans. — I  have  no  recollection  of  any. 

Int.  209. — Have  any  other  witnesses  than  yourself  ever 
been  examined  on  behalf  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  at 
Montreal  ? 

Ans. — I  am  not  aware  of  any. 

Int.  210. — Do  you,  as  agent  for  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company, 


79 

know  of  any  other  witnesses  wliom  it  was  proposed  to  oxam- 
ine  at  Montreal? 

Ans. — I  have  no  recollection  of  any.    . 

Int.  211. — Did  not  what  Mr.  Day  told  you  he  had  said  to 
Mr.  Cushing's  representative,  in  March,  refer  to  your  cross- 
examination  only  ? 

Ans. — On  the  contrary,  it  had  reference  to  my  cxamina- 
tion-in-chief,  my  cross-examination  and  anything  else  that 
might  be  required. 

Int.  212 — Did  not  Mr.  Choate,  in  March,  desire  to  cross- 
examine  you  at  New  York,  which  was  prevented  by  Mr.  Day's 
concluding  to  have  it  done  at  Montreal? 

Ana. — I  am  not  aware  of  any  such  desire  on  the  part  of  Mr. 
Choate. 

Int.  213. — When  you  were  in  Washington,  in  March,  1866, 
did  Mr.  Day  tell  you  that  he  had  proposed  to  Mr.  Gushing 
himself,  at  tliat  time  or  any  other  time,  that  your  deposition 
should  be  taken  before  him  or  Mr.  Stone  in  Washington? 

Ans. — I  am  not  aware  that  Judge  Day  mentioned  the  names 
of  either  of  these  gentlemen  in  connection  with  the  matter, 
except  in  f<o  far  as  Mr.  Cushing's  name  might  have  been  men- 
tioned in  connection  with  his  representative  at  W^ashington. 

Int.  214. — Do  you  mean  to  say  that  Judge  Day  and  your- 
self desired  that  your  deposition  should  bo  taken  in  Wash- 
ington in  March,  1866,  and  that  Judge  Day  expressed  this 
desire  to  Mr.  Cushing  or  his  representative? 

Ans. — I  myself  was  quite  desirous  that  my  deposition  should 
be  taken  in  Washington  in  March,  1866,  and  Judge  Day  was, 
I  believe,  equally  desirous.  At  least  he  so  expressed  himself 
to  me,  and  that  he  had  so  stated  to  Mr.  Cushing's  representa- 
tive. 

Int.  215. — Was  Mr.  Choate  sent  for  to  cross-examine  you 
at  Montreal,  in  April? 

Ans, — I  tliink  I  have  already  stated  that  he  was.  I  sup- 
pose ho  was. 

Int.  216.  —  In  part  answer  to  interrogatory  151,  which 
inquired  whether  your  answers  were  written  out  uii  consulta- 
tion with  counsel  of  the  Hudson's  Uay  Company,  you  say,  "I 


Ml 


80 


f 


I  > 
7 


:) 


may  have  (Mr.  consulted  him  Day)  about  my  answers,  but  I 
have  no  recollection  of  it."  Did  you  take  counsel  or  advice 
from  any  other  person  or  persons  as  to  those  answers? 

Ans. — I  am  not  aware  of  having  done  so. 

Int.  217. — In  the  memorial  presented  to  the  Commissioners 
on  page  10,  certain  buildings  and  mills,  &c.,  are  valued  at 
i£46,000.  Did  you  make  an  estimate  of  these  buildings  and 
give  it  to  the  counsel  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company? 

Ans. — I  believe  I  did  figure  the  thing  out. 

Int.  218, — Was  your  estimate  higher  or  lower  than  £45,000? 

Ans. — I  believe  it  was  somewhat  higher.  I  don't  remem- 
ber how  much. 

Int.  219. — Why  was  it  cut  down  ? 

Ans. — I  really  don't  remember. 

Int.  220. — W  ere  you  any  better  able  to  figure  up  the  value 
of  those  buildings  then  than  you  are  now? 

Ans. — If  I  had  my  notes  by  me  I  might  possibly  arrive  at 
the  same  results  as  then.  It  is  never  very  safe  to  deal  with 
figures  in  speaking. 

Int.  221. — What  notes  do  you  refer  to?  \ 

Ans. — Notes  that  I  had  among  my  papers. 

Int.  222. — What  did  these  notes  show  ? 

Ans, — I  hardly  know.     They  show  a  great  many  things. 

Int.  223. — Was  this  value  of  £45,000  referable  to  the  sale- 
able viiluo? 

Ans. — That  depends  upon  what  the  memorial  says.  In  my 
testimony  I  dealt  with  its  value  to  the  Company's  business. 

Int.  224. — In  the  estimate  which  you  gave  to  the  counsel  of 
the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  what  value  did  you  refer  to? 

Avs. — Any  estimates  that  I  have  made  were  based  on  the 
value  of  the  property  to  tho  Company's  business. 

Int.  i^o, — Are  you  able  now  to  give  any  particular  reasons 
why  these  buildings  were  of  more  value  to  the  Company  than 
£45,000,  giving  an  estimate  for  each  building  what  you  con- 
sider it  worth  to  the  Company. 

Ans. — Standing  in  this  room  where  we  now  are  it  is  impog- 
sible  for  me  to  go  into  such  details.  My  estimate  ol  the  ral»e 
of  the  place  is  based  on  my  knowledge  of  it,  as  the  whole 


y  ^ 


81 


thing  stood  in  1846.  Were  it  my  own  property  at  that  period, 
I  should  not  have  sold  it  for  £45,000  or  for  .£75,000  either, 
had  the  money  been  offered  to  me,  which  is  one  reason,  no 
doubt,  why  Hook  on  the  first-named  sum  as  an  under-estimate 
of  the  value  of  the  property. 

Int.  226. — How  did  the  counsel  for  the  Hudson's  Bay  Com- 
pany arrive  at  the  value  of  £45,000,  which  they  have  presented. 
Ann. — I  really  do  not  remember. 

Int.  227. — Did  any  other  officer  of  the  Company  help  them 
to  make  their  estimate  ? 

Ans. — Probably  not ;  I  think  not. 

Int.  228. — Did  they  have  any  papers,  other  than  those  fur-  • 
nished  by  you,  from  which  they  could  make  their  estimate  ? 
Ans. — I  have  no  doubt  they  had. 
Int.  229. — What  were  these  papers  ? 
Ans. — I  really  could  not  say. 
Int.  230. — Do  you  know  that  they  had  any  ? 
Ans. — 1  think  they  had. 

Int.  231. — What  ones  do  you  know  that  they  had? 
Ans. — I  have  no  recollection  of  any. 

Int.  232. — Did  they  have  the  books  of  the  Company  from 
which  they  could  judge  of  the  cost  of  the  buildings,  or  of 
their  value  to  the  Company  ? 
Ans.  They  had  no  such  books. 

Int.  233. — Did  you  give  them  an  estimate  of  the  cost  of  the 
buildings  ? 

Ans. — I  did  not. 

Int.  2.34. — Can  you  give  an  estimate  of  the  cost  of  the 
buildings  ? 

Ans. — I  am  quite  unable  to  give  such  an  estimate,  further 
than  V  hat  was  stated  in  my  reply  to  the  interrogatory  in  re- 
gard to  the  cost  of  all  the  buildings. 

Int.  235. — Do  you  know  when  the  mills  were  built  ? 

Ans. — There  were  mills,  saw  and   grist,  at   work  when  I 

went  to  Vancouver  first  in  1839,  which,  of  course,  were  built 

previous  to  m;>   arrival ;  but  I  could  not  say  when.     There 

were  additional  structures  put  up  both  at  the  grist  and  the 

6 


'"it 


82 

Baw-tnills,  in  the  sliapc  of  new  mills,  some  time  between  1844 
anil  1846. 

Int.  236. — Why  were  the  new  saw  and  grist-mills  built  ? 

Ana. — The  new  grist-mill  was  of  a  much  larger  size  than 
the  other,  and  the  other  saw-mill  was,  I  think,  in  addition  to 
the  one  that  was  working — that  is,  so  far  as  I  remember. 

Int.  23T. — Describe  the  two  saw-mills  particularly  in  refer- 
ence to  the  number  of  their  saws  ? 

Ans. — I  am  unable  to  describe  them. 

Int.  238. — Describe  them  in  reference  to  their  cost. 

Ans. — I  am  unable  to  do  that. 

Int.  239. — Was  any  part  of  them  brought  from  England  ? 

Ans. — Yes ;  there  were  very  heavy  wrought-iron  cranks 
brought  from  England,  also  the  saws  and  a  lot  of  other  gear- 
ing, blocks,  &c.,  which  I  cannot  very  well  describe. 

Int.  240. — What  books  of  the  Company  would  show  the 
cost  of  this  machinery  bi'ought  from  England  ? 

Ans. — It  would  be  found  in  the  invoice  books  of  the  Com- 
pany the  year  they  were  imported. 

Int.  241. — Did  they  use  the  old  saw-mill  after  the  new  one 
was  built? 

Ans. — So  far  as  I  know,  they  did. 

Jnt.  242. — Do  you  know  whether  they  did  or  not  ? 

An». — I  have  no  personal  knowledge  about  it. 

Int.  243. — Was  not  the  old  mill  often  stopped  on  account  of 
back  water  ? 

Ans. — In  the  summer  months,  when  the  Columbia  river  was 
very  high,  the  back  water  would  occasionally  stop  the  work- 
ing of  the  mill  for  a  short  period ;  but  this  did  not  happen 
every  year,  as  the  water  had  to  be  very  high  indeed  before 
the  working  of  the  mill  could  be  affected  by  it. 

Int.  244. — Can  you  tell  how  many  feet  each  of  these  mills. 
was  capable  of  cutting  in  a  day  ? 

Ans. — I  do  not  remember ;  a  large  quantity,  no  doubt. 

Int.  245. — Were  these  mills  run  night  and  day  and  Sun- 
days, and  all  the  year  ? 

Ans. — Not  on  Sundays  nor  on  holidays  ;  but  when  running. 


/    ,7 


88 


they  ran  day  and  night,  having  the  regular  watches  of  men 
to  change. 

Int.  246. — Do  you  mean  to  say  in  your  answer  to  interrog- 
atory 7,  of  your  direct  examination,  that  these  saw-mills,  pre- 
vious to  the  year  1846,  cut  a  million  of  feet  annually  ? 

Anfi, — I  believe  I  so  stated. 

Int.  247. — What  books  of  the  Company  would  show  how 
much  lumber  these  mills  cut  ? 

Ans. — There  was  a  book  or  books  at  the  mill  which  showed 
the  amount  of  the  lumber  cut. 

Int.  248. — What  books  would  show  how  much  lumber  was 
nhipped  each  year,  and  at  Avhat  prices  ? 

Ans, — There  are  different  books  would  show  this;  I  hardly 
renufmber  what  they  were. 

hif.  240. — When  did  the  Company  cease  using  these  mills  ? 

AnH. — I  have  no  recollection  of  the  mill  working  after  my 
return  in  the  autumn  of  1853.  Some  lumber  may,  however, 
have  been  cut  in  the  winter  of  1853-'o4,  without  my  remem- 
brance. 

Int.  250. — Why  did  the  Company  cease  to  use  these  mills 
at  or  about  1853? 

Ana. — I  really  have  forgotten ;  probably  some  trouble  with 
the  settlers  about.  '  .    -      " 

Int.  251. — Had  not  the  working  of  these  mills  ceased  to  be 
profitable  previous  to  1853? 

Aw. — I  never  looked  into  the  question,  and  not  having 
been  there  myself,  I  don't  know  whether  to  say  yes  or  no  to 
the  question. 

Int.  252, — Do  you  know  that  the  Company  had  any  trouble 
with  the  settlers  about  the  mill  previous  to  1853  ? 

Ans. — I  have  no  personal  knowledge  about  it. 

Int.  253. — Were  not  you  in  charge  of  Vancouver  after  1853? 

Am, — I  had  charge  of  Fort  Vancouver  after  the  30th  Sep- 
tember, 1854. 

Int.  254. — Why  did  you  not  run  the  mills  after  that  date? 

An». — I  have  forgotten  why. 

Int.  255.^ — Would  it  not  have  been  a  loss  to  have  run  them? 

Ana. — Not  having  run  the  mills,  I  do  not  know  that  it  would 


84 

have  been  a  loss  or  not.  There  was  difficulty  in  getting  logs, 
in  consequence  of  the  lands  where  the  Company's  logs  ought 
to  have  been  cut  being  occupied  by  people  who  claimed  the 
land,  and  would  not  allow  the  trees  to  be  cut.  No  doubt  this 
was  one  reason  why  the  mills  were  not  working. 

Int.  256. — What  particular  difficulties  of  this  kind  do  you 
remember,  and  in  your  answer  give  names,  dates,  and  location 
of  these  lands? 

Ans. — I  am  unable  to  enter  into  these  particulars  now,  and 
would  simply  state  the  circumstance  or  fact  which  occurred  to 
my  own  knowledge. 

Int.  257. — In  what  year  were  the  Company  prevented  from 
cutting  trees  by  the  settlers  ? 

Ana. — I  do  not  know  when  the  settlers  first  began  to  stop 
the  cutting  of  lumber,  but  from  the  time  I  went  there  in  1853 
until  1858,  when  I  left,  they  would  not  allow  anything  of  the 
kind  to  be  done. 

Int.  258. — Was  there  not  abundance  of  woodland  in  the 
neighborhood  of  the  mill,  where  the  Company  could  have  cut 
timber? 

Ans. — In  the  immediate  vicinity  of  the  mill  there  was  no 
timber  left.  In  order  to  get  logs,  the  Company  had  to  go  quite 
a  distance  off  on  the  lands  claimed  by  them,  which  being  in  the 
hands  of  other  people  who  had  settled  upon  them,  and  who 
looked  upon  them  as  their  own,  caused  all  the  difficulty  about 
getting  logs. 

Resumed  3Iarch  22. 


Int.  259. — How  far  was  the  nearest  woodland  claimed  by 
the  Company  from  the  mill  ? 

Ans. — A  couple  of  miles. 

Int.  260. — How  large  a  tract  of  land  had  been  cut  over  in 
1853  to  supply  the  Company's  mill? 

Ans. — A  tract  of  some  miles  square  back  from  the  river, 
and  down  the  river  and  up  the  river. 

Int.  261. — Did  not  the  distance  which  logs  had  to  be  carried 


85 


before  they  could  reach  the  river  add  much  to  the  expense  of 
the  lumber  ? 

A718. — Unquestionably. 

Int.  262. — When  was  the  price  of  lumber  the  highest  at  the 
mills  ? 

Ans. — I  was  not  in  the  country  at  the  time,  but  I  believe  it 
was  in  the  years  1849  and  1850,  when  lumber  for  many 
months  was  worth  from  $70  to  $100  per  thousand  feet. 

Int.  263. — What  was  lumber  worth  in  1846  ? 

Ans. — I  do  not  remember  what  lumber  was  worth  at  the  mill 
in  1846,  but  at  the  Sandwich  Islands,  which  was  our  principal 
market  for  that  article,  it  was  then  worth  $50  a  thousand. 

Int.  264. — When  did  the  price  of  lumber  begin  to  rise  in 
Oregon? 

Ans. — In  1848  the  price  of  lumber  at  the  mills  began  to 
rise. 

Int.  265. — What  had  been  done  with  the  lumber  cut  at  the 
mills  previous  to  1848  ? 

Ans. — A  large  quantity  of  it  in  my  time  was  used  for  the 
purposes  of  building  and  improvements  generally  about  Fort 
Vancouver  and  its  surroundings.  Some  was  sold  in  the 
country,  and  from  time  to  time  shipments  were  made  to  the 
Sandwich  Islands,  and  perhaps  to  other  places. 

Int.  266. — Was  it  not  cheaper  for  the  Company  to  use  the 
plank  sawed  at  these  mills  for  the  buildings  at  Vancouver, 
which  you  have  said  were  made  of  plank,  than  to  use  hewn 
logs? 

Ans. — I  cannot  make  the  comparison,  for  I  have  no  knowl- 
edge of  the  cost  of  handling  hewn  logs. 

Int.  267. — Was  not  the  site  of  the  fort  a  forest  when  the 
Company  went  there  ? 

Ans. — I  hardly  know.  I  suppose  there  must  have  been 
some  of  the  timber  standing  at  the  time,  because  there  was 
the  remains  of  stumps  here  and  there.  Not  far  below  the 
fort  a  belt  or  grove  of  tree^  went  down  all  the  way  to  what 
was  called  the  Lower  Plain. 

Int.  268. — How  did  the  Company  occupy  their  saw-milla 
after  1854? 


i 


iKMh-li    IMM—iHn'iT'il>  ■«(■„'■  v.. tiVjj,; 


u- 


r- 


> 


IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


1.0 


I.I 


b£|M    125 

150  ■^~   n^H 


■  2.2 


us 

u 


2.0 


IL25  i  1.4 


I 
III  1.6 


Photographic 

Sciences 

Corporation 


33  Wi(S  I  MAIN  STRUT 
WHSTM.N.Y.  t4SI0 

(716)  STausoa 


^^' 

^ 


If 


c^ 


i 


t,  f 


86 

Ana. — The  saw  and  grist-mills  were  in  charge  of  the  mill- 
wright, who  had  a  house  situated  somewhere  between  them. 
He  had  assistants,  of  course,  and  labor,  as  he  might  require 
it. 

Int.  269. — For  what  did  this  mill-wright  ever  require  aid? 

Ans. — When  the  grist-mill  was  running,  of  course  he  re- 
quired assistance. 

Int.  270. — Do  you'  know  of  any  repairs  or  improvements 
the  Company  ever  made  on  these  saw-mills  after  1854  't 

Ans. — I  don't  remember  of  any. 

Int.  271. — In  answer  to  interrogatory  6th  of  your  direct- 
examination,  you  say  "the  saAV-mills,  in  1858,  were  virtually 
in  possession  of  a  man  named  Taylor."  What  do  you  mean  by 
virtually  ? 

Ans. — He  had  taken  possession  of  them,  claiming  the 
place  as  being  on  what  he  called  his  land-claim. 

Int.  272.— -Did  Taylor  run  these  mills  after  1858? 

Ans. — I  left  the  country  in  1858,  and  know  nothing  farther 
about  them  since.  \ 

Int.  273. — Have  these  mills  ever  been  run  since  1858  ? 

Ans.^I  am  unable  to  say. 

Int.  274. — Were  not  a  superior  class  of  mills  built  by  set- 
tlers in  the  country  previous  to  1858,  so  that  the  Company's 
mills  were  unable  to  compete  with  them  ? 

Ans. — There  were  a  great  many  saw-mills  through  the  coun- 
try ;  whether  they  were  superior  or  inferior,  I  am  quite  un- 
able to  say.  The  running  of  those  other  mills  had  nothing 
whatever  to  do  with  the  stopping  of  the  Company's  mill.  The 
situation  was  a  very  good  one,  as  in  the  immediate  neighborhood 
there  was  population  suiBcient  to  consume  all  the  lumber  that 
could  be  cut  from  time  to  time,  selling  the  same  at  the  ordi- 
nary market  rates. 

Int.  275. — When  did  the  Company  ship  their  last  load  of 
lumber  from  Vancouver  ? 

Ans. — I  don't  think  there  was  much  sent  after  1849  ? 

Int.  276. — Did  the  Company  ever  try  to  use  their  mills  after 
"Taylor  took  possession  of  the  land  about  them? 

Ans. — The  Company  brought  an  action  against  Taylor  to 


J     !■■ 


87 


remove  him,  but  all  the  court  would  grant  was  an  injunction 
forbidding  Taylor  to  run  the  mills;  and,  if  I  remember  right, 
the  Company  were  equally  bound  in  the  same  manner.  This 
action  against  Taylor  took  place  early  in  the  year  1857. 

Int.  277. — Describe  t'le  grist-mill. 

Ana. — I  don't  know  that  I  am  able  to  describe  it  particu- 
larly ;  it  was  a  very  complete  mill,  with  French  burrs  in  it,  and 
bolting-machine,  elevators,  &c.,  smut-machine  also,  and  other 
conveniences  for  making  good  flour ;  and  outside  there  was  the 
necessary  apparatus  for  receiving  wheat  from  the  river,  and 
shipping  flour  when  necessary.  It  was  well  situated  for  busi- 
ness, being  close  to  the  river,  so  that  people  comfng  that  way 
with  wheat  to  grind  had  every  facility.  On  the  shore-side 
there  were  good  roads  made  up  to  the  saw-mill,  back  from  the 
grist-mill  to  the  Mill  Plain,  and  also  down  to  Fort  Vancouver. 
I  am  unable  to  give  the  cost  of  the  mill ;  but  the  price  of  such 
portions  of  it  as  came  from  England,  such  as  the  burr-stones, 
bolting-machines,  and  other  parts  of  the  machinery,  which  I 
cannot  detail,  will  no  doubt  be  found  in  the  invoice  book  of 
the  year  in  which  the  articles  were  imported ;  a  copy  of  such 
invoices  is  no  doubt  in  England.  I  have  forgotten  how  much 
flour  the  mill  could  or  did  grind  in  a  year.  So  far  as  I  re- 
member, the  Company  kept  the  flour-mill  running  all  the 
time. 

Int.  278. — Would  not  the  books  of  the  Company  show  how 
much  grain  this  mill  ground  each  year,  and  how  much  profit  it 
was  to  the  Company? 

Ans. — I  do  not  remember  whether  the  books  would  show 
how  much  the  mill  did  grind  in  the  course  of  a  year,  or  what 
the  profit  was.  I  have  no  recollection  in  my  time  of  any 
special  account  being  kept  to  show  what  profit  was  made  on 
the  mill  each  year. 

Int.  279. — When  did  the  Company  cease  to  run  this  mill  ? 

Ans. — The  grist-mill  was  running  and  in  good  working 
order  when  I  left  Fort  Vancouver  in  1858.  Since  that  I  know 
nothing  about  it. 

Int.  280. — What  was  the  average  number  of  men  employed 
by  the  Company  at  Vancouver  from  1839  to  1846  ? 


r  1 


I 


Am. — To  the  best  of  my  recollection  all  of  200  engaged 
men,  one  time  with  another.  Besides  which,  there  were  a 
great  many  Indians  employed  there,  the  number  of  which  I 
don't  recollect,  probably  averaging  over  100. 

Int.  281. — What  was  the  form  of  engagement  entered  into 
by  engaged  men  ?      ■ 

Ans. — The  laboring  people  engaged  in  the  Orkney  Islands, 
or  on  the  Island  of  Lewis,  generally  signed  agreements  ,for  a 
term  of  five  years,  a  free  pasoage  to  be  found  for  them  out  to 
Hudson's  Bay;  and  at  the  expiration  of  the  teym  for  which 
they  had  engaged,  the  Company  had,  in  like  manner,  to  send 
them  home  again.  The  men  engaged  in  Canada  did  so,  gen- 
erally, for  a  term  of  three  years,  and  had  to  be  sent  into  the 
northwest,  by  canoes  specially  equipped  for  that  purpose,  from 
Montreal.  The  men  who  engaged  at  Red  River  settlement,  in 
Rupert's  Land,  generally  did  so  for  three  years,  and  were  sent 
out  from  there  to  Norway  House,  in  Lake  Winnipeg,  by  boats, 
from  whence  they  were  distributed  where  their  services  might 
be  required.  The  Sandwich  Islanders  were  engaged  at  Hon- 
olulu for  terms  of  three  years.  Passages  were  found  them  by 
ship  to  Fort  Vancouver,  and  when  the  period  for  which  they 
had  engaged  expired  they  were  sent  home  in  like  manner, 
coming  and  going  at  the  Company's  expense.  Parties  who 
engaged  in  England,  and  came  from  there  by  ship  to  Fort 
Vancouver,  were  generally  engaged  for  periods  of  five  years, 
at  the  end  of  which  time  they  were  sent  home  again  by  ship, 
passages  bejng  found  for  them,  both  coming  out  and  going 
home,  at  the  Company's  expense.  The  men  coming  from 
Canada,  as  well  as  from  Red  River,  were  also  sent  home  to 
their  respective  countries,  when  their  period  of  service  had 
expired,  in  the  same  manner  they  were  taken  from  there  when 
first  employed.  These  engagements  bound  the  people  to  go 
into  the  Indian  country  in  the  manner  stated,  and  to  obey  all 
lawful  orders  which  the  Company's  representatives,  under  whom 
they  might  be  serving  for  the  time,  might  give.  Among  the 
people  would  be,  as  a  general  thing,  a  good  many  tradesmen, 
such  as  blacksmiths,  carpenters,  coopers,  &c.  The  remainder 
would  be  employed  as  laborers  and  voyageurs.     The  rates  of 


\> 


1 


89 

wages  annually  paid  these  people  varied  according  to  their 
capacity,  the  tradesmen  being  better  paid,  and  the  scale  com- 
menced at  j£16  or  £11  per  annum,  and  went  up  to  £30  or  £35. 
Besides  which,  the  people  were  always  fed  and  lodged,  and 
when  at  the  different  establishments,  quarters  were  found  for 
them,  with  medicines  and  medical  advice.  The  engagements 
were  printed  forms,  the  blanks  being  filled  up  when  parties 
engaged,  according  to  the  agreement. 

Int.  282. — Is  not  the  form  of  agreement  now  shown  you  on 
the  536th  pagp  of  the  4th  vol.  of  Wilkes'  Exploring  Expedition, 
entitled  "  Articles  of  Agreement  between  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company  and  their  Servants,"  a  correct  copy  of  which  is  here- 
after to  be  annexed  to  this  deposition  and  marked  "B,"  a 
correct  copy  of  the  blank  articles  of  agreement  between  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company  and  their  servants  ? 

Ana. — The  printed  articles  of  agreement  between  the  Hud- 
son's Bay  Company  and  their  servants,  now  shown  to  me,  is 
probably  genuine,  but  it  is  a  form  of  agreement  with  which  I 
am  quite  unacquainted  during  all  the  yeai;s  I  have  been  in 
the  service. 

Int.  283. — Have  you  now  in  your  possession  forms  of  the 
various  agreements  between  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  and 
.their  officers  and  servants? 

An8. — I  have  not. 

Jnt.  284. — Have  these  forma  changed  since  1846  ? 

Ans. — They  may  have  changed,  though  where  I  was  serving 
on  the  northwest  coast,  I  don't  remember  any  change  in 
them. 

Int.  285. — Where  can  copies  of  the  present  forms  of  engage- 
ments be  found  ? 

Ana. — I  should  think  they  would  be  found  at  the  Hudson's 
Bay  House  in  London,  if  any  where.  The  old  forms,  previous 
to  1846,  are  to  be  found  at  Vancouver  Island. 

Int.  286. — Where  will  any  books  of  the  Company  be  found, 
which  will  show  the  number,  the  time  of  service,  and  the  num- 
ber sent  home,  of  the  engaged  servants  of  the  Company,  from 
1839  to  1846? 

Ana. — There  ought  to  be  such  a  record  among  the  accounts 


i 


li^^ 


90 


which  were  kept  at  that  period  at  Fort  Vancouver,  and  which, 
I  suppose,  are  now  at  Victoria. 

Int.  287. — Did  not  these  servants,  when  sent  home,  work 
their  own  passage  ? 

Ana. — Of  those  sent  in  boats,  most  of  them  worked ;  but  a 
great  part  of  the  way  in  going  out  from  Fort  Vancouver  there 
were  craft  especially  fitted  out  for  them,  in  which  there  was 
no  cargo  of  any  kind.  So  in  the  same  way,  where  there  was 
land  transport,  horses  were  found.  In  the  same  way  the  men 
returning  to  Canada  had  canoes  fitted  out  for  them,  in  which 
no  cargo  was  carried.  With  regard  to  those  going  home  in 
the  ships,  they  would  no  doubt  have  to  stand  watch ;  but  this 
was  not  necessary  to  the  navigation  of  the  ship,  as  the  Com- 
pany's vessels  were  always  more  than  fully  manned.  The 
reason  why  these  passengers  kept  watuli  was  more  a  police 
regulation  than  anything  else,  as  by  this  arrangement  they 
were  put  under  the  control  of  the  captain  of  the  vessel,  who 
would  keep  up  order  and  discipline  amongst  them,  oti  erwise 
they  might  get  unmanagable  on  board  and  give  trouble. 

Int.  288. — Did  not  a  great  majority  of  the  Company's  ser- 
vants either  continue  in  the  Company's  service  after  their 
first  term  of  service  had  expired,  or  else  locate  somewhere  in 
the  country  ? 

Examination  Resumed,  March  23. 

Ans. — A  good  many  of  the  old  hands,  principally  Cana- 
dians, had  already  settled  down  as  farmers  in  the  Willamette 
valley  and  on  the  Cowlitz  prairie.  When  I  first  went  to  Fort 
Vancouver,  and  afterwards  occasionally,  some  of  the  servants 
whose  term  of  service  had  expired,  obtained  permission  from 
time  to  time  to  settle  in  the  country  in  like  manner.  But 
between  the  years  1839  and  1846  a  certain  number  of  the  ser- 
vants claimed  the  right  to  be  sent  home  as  by  agreement, 
probably  averaging  in  each  year,  including  the  Sandwich 
Islanders,  something  over  thirty  men.  When  I  left  Fort  Van- 
couver, in  January,  1847,  the  full  complement  of  engaged  men 
was  there.  What  became  of  them  afterwards  I  am  unable  to 
say. 


/'/ 


91 

Int.  289. — Did  not  some  of  the  servants  of  the  Company 
settle  in  the  immediate  neighborhood  of  Fort  Vancouver  even 
previous  to  1846,  and  have  not  many  of  them  settled  in  that 
neighborhood  since  1846  ? 

An%. — There  were  no  settlers  in  the  neighborhood  of  Fort 
Vancouver  previous  to  1846,  that  I  have  any  recollection  of. 
When  I  returned  to  the  country  in  1853,  I  remember  some 
three  or  four,  probably  of  the  old  hands,  who  were  settled  in 
that  neighborhood. 

Int.  290. — iWhat  were  the  various  duties  of  the  men  em- 
ployed by  the  Company  at  Port  Vancouver  ? 

Ans. — There  were  blacksmiths,  carpenters,  coopers,  joiners, 
among  the  tradesmen  ;  there  were  ox-drivers,  Ic^^-cutters,  men 
working  at  the  saw  and  grist-mills.  Thei'e  were  on  the  farms 
seedsmen,  ploughmen,  and  harrowmen,  reapers  of  grain,  and 
harvest  men  generally  for  hay  and  other  crops.  Shepherds 
looking  after  the  sheep.  There  were  stock  men  looking  after 
the  cattle  and  the  horses ;  and  some  seasons  of  the  year  there 
was  a  great  deal  of  boating  done,  bringing  wheat  from  the 
Willamette  river  and  from  the  mouth  of  the  Cowlitz  river  to 
Fort  Vancouver.  There  was  a  tannery  at  Fort  Vancouver, 
and  a  harness-maker  also.  Of  course,  besides  these,  there 
were  the  hands  employed  under  the  carpenters,  &c.,  going  on 
with  the  buildings  and  other  improvements.  There  were  hands 
also  employed  from  time  to  time  in  loading  and  discharging 
the  ships,  including  the  necessary  number  of  those  who  were 
carting  the  cargoes  to  and  from  the  ships  to  the  fort.  There 
were  men  employed  in  the  building  and  repairing  of  boats, 
and  I  remember  on  one  occasion  a  very  good-sized  schooner 
was  built  and  equipped  there,  known  as  the  Prince  of  Wales, 
which  plied  on  the  Columbia  river  as  far  down  as  Cape  Dis- 
appointment, and  up  the  Willamette  river  as  far  as  Oregon 
City. 

Int.  291. — Were  there  not  more  than  one  quarter  of  the 
Company's  engaged  servants  employed  in  the  various  occupa- 
tions named  in  your  last  answer  other  than  in  repairing  and 
erecting  the  buildings. 

Ans. — The  erection  and  repair  of  buildings  required  not 


■    \ 


X 

\ 


^! 


1 


92 

only  the  labor  for  such  a  purpose,  but  there  must  necessarily 
have  been  employed  the  men  who  were  employed  in  cutting 
the  logs,  sawing  the  lumber,  and  bringing  it  down  the  river 
by  boats,  and  then  carting  it  to  the  place  where  it  was  to  be 
used  from  the  beach.  On  the  Mill  Plain,  where  there  was 
1,000  acres  of  land  under  fence,  the  cutting  and  carting  the 
rails  required  a  great  deal  of  labor.  The  cutting,  sawing, 
and  carting  the  lumber  from  the  saw-mills  back  to  the  plain, 
with  the  making  of  the  necessary  roads,  also  required  a  great 
many  hands)  from  time  to  time.  The  dairies,  of  which  there 
were  three  on  Sauvie's  Island,  in  different  places,  were  at  a 
distance  of  Humething  over  twelve  miles  from  the  saw-mill ; 
from  whence,  all  the  lamber  required  in  their  construction  or 
repairs,  as  the  case  might  be,  were  brought  by  boats,  calling 
for  much  labor  in  that  way.  There  were  blacksmiths  em- 
ployed at  the  saw-mill,  in  the  case  of  anything  breaking  about 
the  mill,  from  time  to  time.  There  were  also  at  Vancouver 
a  great  deal  of  blacksmith's  work  required  in  the  construction 
and  repair  of  the  different  buildings.  Taking  the  whole 
thing  together,  to  the  best  of  my  recollection,  one  time  with 
another,  there  were  not  fewer  than  150  of  the  engaged  hands 
at  Fort  Vancouver  while  I  was  there,  between  1839  and  1846, 
employed  in  the  construction  and  repair  of  buildings  and  on 
tKe  permanent  improvements  of  the  place. 

Int.  292. — Do  you  mean  to  say  that  an  average  number  of 
160  men,  or  three-fourths  of  what  you  have  stated  to  have 
been  the  average  number  of  the  engaged  servants  of  the  Con:- 
pany  at  Vancouver,  were  continually  employed,  from  1839  to 
1846,  in  erecting  and  repairing  the  Company's  buildings  and 
fences,  and  other  permanent  improvements,  not  including 
roads  ? 

Ans, — I  am  unable  to  separate  the  roads  from  Fort  Van- 
couver to  the  farms  and  mills,  as  I  look  upon  them  as  perma- 
nent improvements,  without  which  it  was  impossible  for  the 
Company  to  occupy  or  to  do  anything  with  the  farms  back 
from  the  Fort,  at  least  a  distance  of  six  miles,  and  the  other 
farms  around  the  fort  and  down  the  river.  Including  the 
roads  as  part  of  the  proper  permanent  improvements,  I  believe 


93 


that  the  number  of  men,  say  150,  were  employed,  aa  stated  in 
the  question. 

Int.  293. — In  your  answer  to  interrogatories  145,  146,  147, 
150,  and  291,  have  you,  in  your  estimates  of  the  cost  of  the' 
number  of  men  employed  in  the  permanent  improvements  of 
the  Company,  always  included  the  roads  in  the  permanent 
improvements  ? 

Am. — Always. 

Int.  294. — Are  you  now  able  to  give  an  estimate  of  the  cost 
of  erecting  or  repairing  the  Company's  buildings  or  fences,  as 
distinct  from  the  roads  ? 

Arts. — I  cannot  give  the  estimate  in  any  other  way  than  I 
have  already  done,  in  which  the  roads  in  the  neighborhood  of 
Vancouver,  on  the  Company's  claim  there,  are  considered  as 
part  of  the  permanent  improvements. 

Int.  295. — Can  you  tell  which  cost  the  most,  the  roads  or 
the  buildings,  and  in  what  proportion  were  their  costs  ? 

Ans. — The  roads  cost  the  least,  no  doubt ;  but  I  can't  tell 
anything  about  their  proportion. 

Int.  296. — Can  you  estimate  the  number  of  men  employed 
on  the  buildings,  and  the  length  of  time  they  were  employed ; 
and  can  you  do  the  same  with  the  roads  ? 

Ans. — I  cannot. 

Int.  297. — Can  you  refer  to  any  officer  of  the  Company,  now 
living,  who  knows  anything  more  about  this  matter  than  you 
do? 

Ans. — I  don't  remember  of  any. 

Int.  298. — Can  you  refer  to  any  books  of  the  Company,  that 
will  show  anything  about  the  cost  of  the  buildings  and  the 
roads  ? 

Ans. — I  don't  know  of  any. 

Int.  299. — How  did  the  Company  pay  the  Indians  employed 
in  their  service? 

Ans. — They  paid  them  in  goods,  generally. 

Int.  300. — Can  you  mention  any  article  that  the  Company 
were  accustomed  to  pay  the  Indians  for  a  day's  work  ? 

Ans, — I  have  no  recollection  of  how,  or  what  they  were 
paid. 


f 

»--■ 

1 

1 

i 

1 

,  i 

II 

• 

Int.  801. — Did  any  books  of  the  Company,  kept  at  Van- 
couver and  the  other  posts,  show  what  amount  of  goods  were 
paid  the  Indians,  annually,  for  labor  ? 

An%. — I  cannot  speak  about  the  other  posts  ;  but  I  believe 
that  at  Vancouver,  such  accounts  were  kept. 

Int.  302. — Were  the  Indian  laborers  fed  by  the  Company  ? 

Ana. — Invariably. 

Int.  303. — Did  they  give  them  the  same  rations  as  the  en- 
gaged laborers  ? 

Ana. — I  believe  so. 

Int.  304. — What  was  a  ration  of  the  Company's  servants  ? 

Ans. — A  day's  ration  consisted  of  four  pounds  of  salt  sal- 
mon, one  pound  of  biscuit,  with  potatoes  or  other  vegetables, 
as  the  case  might  be.  There  were  days  during  the  year,  such 
as  Christmas  and  New  Year's,  and  some  others,  extending  in 
all  to  perhaps  half  a  dozen,  when  there  was  on  extra  ration 
served  out,  consisting  of  pork  and  beef,  with  flour  and  bread 
and  tea,  and  sugar  and  molasses.  When  sick  or  in  the  hos- 
pital, whatever  the  doctor  required  for  them  as  medical  com- 
forts, were  allowed  to  them  free  of  charge. 

Int.  305. — Were  not  salmon  caught  in  immense  quantities 
in  the  Columbia  and  other  rivers  of  Oregon ! 

Ans. — My  own  knowledge  is  confined  to  the  lower  Colun"- 
bla  and  the  Willamette  I'ivers,  at  Oregon  City.  In  some  years 
the  salmon  did  make  their  appearance  therein  large  numbers; 
but  they  were  not  caught  in  all  directions  in  the  river,  but 
were  only  caught  at  a  few  spots,  or  a  few  localities,  at  a  con- 
siderable distance  from  one  another. 

Int.  306. — Were  there  not  always  enough  caught  to  supply 
the  Company's  servants  ? 

Ana. — The  Company  never  caught  any  fish;  whatever  they 
got  were  traded  from  the  Indians,  who  were  the  only  fishers  of 
salmon  in  my  day  in  the  Columbia  river. 

Int.  307. — Were  there  salmon  brought  and  sold  to  the  Com- 
pany, at  Vancouver,  by  the  Indians  ? 

Ana. — There  were  very  few  fish  brought  to  Vancouver  by 
the  Indians.  In  the  spring  of  the  year  the  best  fishery  on  the 
Columbia  was  at  the  Cascades,  which  lasted  for  some  months. 


95 

The  Company  sent  a  trader  with  goods,  and  barrels,  and  salt, 
&c.,  and  traded  the  goods  for  the  salmon,  and,  with  the  assist- 
ance of  hands  sent,  cured  and  put  them  up.  In  the  autumn, 
again,  there  was  a  fishery  about  six  miles  below  Fort  Van- 
couver, where  more  of  the  fish  were  traded  and  cured.  In  the 
mme  manner,  up  at  Oregon  city,  fish  were  traded  and  cured 
also.  At  Fort  George,  Astoria,  the  Indians  brought  tlieir 
salmon  in  from  the  fishery  at  Chinook,  immediately  across  the 
river.  At  Pillar  Rock,  some  twenty-five  miles  above  Fort 
George,  on  the  opposite  side  of  the  Columbia,  there  was  another 
fishery,  where  the  Company  had  a  place  for  the  trading  and 
curing  of  fish. 

Int.  308. — What  was  the  average  cost  of  salmon  delivered 
at  Vancouver? 

An». — It  is  difficult  to  arrive  at  the  exact  cost  of  the  salmon, 
as  most  of  the  time  while  I  was  there,  there  was  more  or  less 
opposition  in  the  salmon  trade,  when  the  Indians  of  course 
made  the  best  bargain  they  could  for  themselves,  and  fre- 
quently retained  their  fish  and  sold  them  after  they  were 
spoiled  or  tainted.  It,  therefore,  frequently  happened,  in  my 
experience,  that,  after  the  salmon  had  been  brought  to  the 
fort  and  stowed  away,  upon  afterwards  inspecting  them,  large 
quantities  would  be  found  that  were  spoiled  and  useless ;  so 
that,  although  one  might  fancy  their  costing  little  or  nothing, 
they  were  in  reality  costing  a  great  deal.  One  year  with 
another,  I  believe  that  the  barrel  of  good  salt  salmon,  when 
cured  and  properly  put  up,  cost  six  dollars,  or  three  cents  per 
pound.  The  price  of  salt  salmon  in  the  Columbia  river  was 
regulated  by  the  prices  at  the  Sandwich  Islands,  where  it  sold 
readily  in  those  days  at  from  eight  to  ten  dollars  per  barrel. 

Int.  309. — Why  did  the  Company  buy  spoiled  and  tainted 
salmon  ? 

Am. — For  the  simple  reason  that  it  is  very  difficult  to  tell 
when  a  fresh  salmon  is  tainted  or  not.  The  fish  may  b^eatable 
and  fresh,  and  yet  not  sound  enough  to  keep,  wheil  tried  by 
the  process  of  curing. 

Int.  310. — Was  one-tenth  of  the  salmon  brought  to  Van- 
couver each  year  destroyed  because  it  was  spoiled  ? 


^ 


96 


'/  1 


Ana. — Thcro  may  have  boon  more  than  that,  so  far  aa  I 
know.  I  cannot  say  what  proportion  might  have  been  found 
in  a  bad  condition  from  time  to  time.  All  I  am  positive  of  is, 
that  one  was  liable  at  any  time,  at  Fort  Vancouver,  to  find 
himself  with  a  lot  of  bad  salmon,  when  he  calculated  on  having 
a  good,  marketable  article. 

Int.  311. — Did  not  the  Company  buy  salmon  at  the  same 
rates,  or  a  little  lower,  than  other  people? 

Ans. — I  do  nrt  know  what  other  people  paid. 

Int.  812. — V'ill  not  the  Company's  books  show  what  they 
paid? 

Avs. — I  believe  they  do. 

Int.  813. — Were  the  same  rations  given  at  other  posts  as  at 
Vancouver  ? 

Ans. — I  have  no  knowledge  of  the  rations  at  the  other  posts. 

Jnt.  314. — Did  not  the  Company  at  one  time  import  tallow 
from  California,  and  issue  it  as  part  of  their  servants'  rations? 

Ans. — They  did  import  tallow  from  California  while  I  was 
there,  I  think,  but  I  never  knew  of  its  being  served  out  i^s 

rations.  \ 

Int.  315. — Were  not  many  of  the  Company's  servants,  at  the 
interior  posts,  fed  on  horse  meat  ? 

An8. — I  really  do  not  know ;  I  hoard  of  such  things,  but  I 
hove  no  knowledge  of  it  myself. 

Int.  316. — Did  you  assist  the  counsel  of  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company  in  their  estimate  of  "  the  tract  of  land  occupied, 
possessed,  and  used  by  the  Company  for  its  post  at  Vancou- 
ver?"    (Memorial,  pa  ^e  10.) 

Ans. — I  don't  know  how  far  I  assisted  the  counsel ;  I  have 
no  doubt  I  was  spoken  to  about  it ;  I  hardly  know  whether  I 
gave  an  estimate  to  them  or  not. 

Int.  317. — In  your  answer  to  interrogatory  5,  on  your 
direct  examination,  you  say  "  the  land  used  by  the  Company 
at  Fort  Vancouver  in  1846,  say  containing  a  frontage  of 
twenty-five  miles  on  the  Columbia,  by  ten  miles  in  depth,  in 
all  two  hundred  and  fifty  square  miles,  or  about  one  hundred 
and  sixty  thousand  acres,  I  should  calculate  as  being  worth 
then  on  an  average  of  from  twoand  a-half  to  three  dollars  per 


97 

acre."    On  what  authority  or  evidence  did  you  make  this 
eatimato  of  the  amount  of  land  used  by  the  Company  ? 

Ans. — From  my  own  personal  knowledge. 

Int.  818. — What  has  been  your  personal  knowledge  in  this 
matter  ? 

Ans. — I  was  aware  that  the  land  was  used  by  them  for  the 
purposes  mentioned,  and  I  have  been  over  largo  portions  of  it 
on  foot  and  on  horseback. 

Int.  819. — When  did  the  Company  first  take  possession  of 
this  tract  of  land  ? 

Ans. — While  at  Vancouver,  between  1889  and  1846,  I  was 
in  a  subordinate  position ;  I  really  do  not  know  when  the 
Company  did  take  possession  of  it. 

Int.  320. — When  did  you  first  know  they  had  taken  posses- 
sion of  it  ? 

Ans. — They  were  in  the  use  of  this  land  when  I  was  there  ; 
I  supposed  they  were  in  possession  of  it  then. 

Int.  321. — When  did  the  Company  first,  claim  to  be  in 
possession  of  this  particular  tract  of  la^  \'{ 

Ans. — I  really  do  not  know. 

Int.  822. — Did  they  in  1846  claim  to  be  in  possession  of  this 
land? 

Ana. — I  cannot  say  what  the  Company  did  in  the  matter  in 
1846,  I  had  no  charge  of  their  business  there  then. 

Examination  Resumed,  March  25t7u 


Int.  323. — When  did  you  first  know  that  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company  claimed  this  distinct  tract  of  land  ? 

Ans. — I  do  not  know  that  I  ever  knew  anything  in  partic- 
ular about  the  Company's  claiming  this  tract  of  land  ;  as  I  al- 
ways supposed  they  claimed  it,  I  never  inquired  anything 
more  about  it. 

Int.  324. — Did  you  ever  see  any  map  of  the  Company's 
claim  at  Vancouver  ? 

Ans. — I  have  no  recoUectipn  of  having  seen  any. 

Int.  325. — Did  any  of  your  superior  officers,  before  1846, 
7B 


98 

ever  tell  you  that  the  Company  claimed  this  particular  tract 
of  land? 

Ans. — I  have  no  recollection  now  that  anything  was  said  to 
me  on  the  subject. 

Int.  326. — On  what  authority  then  do  you  state  that  the 
Company  did  claim  this  land  ? 

An». — I  don't,  now,  remember  any  use  of  the  term  "  claim- 
ing the  land"  in  my  testimony. 

Int.  327. — Did  the  Company  ever  claim  this  tract  of  land  ? 

Ans. — I  have  always  supposed  they  did  80< 

Int.  328.— When  did  they  first  claim  it  ? 
'  Ans. — I  cannot  answer  the  question,  as  previous  to  1846, 
when  at  Vancouver,  I  was  not  in  a  position  to  know  what  the 
Company  did  in  such  matters. 

Int.  329. — When  were  you  first  in  position  to  know  what 
the  Company  did  in  such  matters  ? 

Ans. — I  don't  know  that  I  ever  was  in  a  position  to  know. 
When  I  returned  to  Fort  Vancouver  in  1853,  it  was  a  matter 
of  old  date.  I  never  remember  asking  the  Company  what 
had  been  done  about  it  ? 

Int.  330. — Do  you  mean  to  say  that  you  are  not  now  in  po- 
sition to  know  about  this  matter  ? 

Ans: — Not  of  my  own  knowledge,  certainly. 
,  Int.  331. — Do  you  know  of  any  map  that  has  ever  been 
made  by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  of  their  claim  at  Van- 
couver ? 

Ans. — I  do  not  remember  of  any. 

Int.  332. — On  what  authority  was  the  claim  to  lands  at 
Vancouver  in  the  memorial  made  ? 

Ans. — I  cannot  say. 

Int.  333. — Did  you  not  represent  to  the  counsel  of  the  Hud- 
son's Bay  Company  that  the  Company's  claim  for  land  at 
Vancouver  was  as  stated  in  the  memorial  ? 

Ank. — Not  that  I  know  of. 

Int.  334. — Can  you  refer  to  any  records  that  will  show  that 
the  Company  claimed  this  land  previous  to  1860  ? 

Ans. — I  don't  remember  of  any ;  there  may  be  some,  but  I 
don't  recollect  them. 


99 

Int.  335. — Can  you  refer  to  any  livinjj  witneimeR  who  know 
anything  more  about  this  claim  than  you  do? 

Ans. — Sir  James  Douglas  is  still  alive ;  there  may  bo  others ; 
I  don't  remember. 

Int.  336. — Do  you  mean  to  say  that  you  know  the  Company 
claimed  this  tract  of  land  previous  to  1846  ? 

Ans. — Only  by  supposition. 

Int.  837. — Do  you  mean  to  say  that  you  know  that  they 
claimed  it  before  1860  ? 

An». — Only  by  supposition. 

Int.  338. — Why  do  you  suppose  they  claimed  it  before  1846? 

Ans. — Because  the  Company  used  and  occupied  the  land. 

Int.  339. — Have  you  any  other  reason  for  tuppoMlng  they 
claimed  i*  before  1860  ? 

Ans. — Not  that  I  remember  of. 

Int.  340. — Was  the  Company's  claim  definitely  marked  ? 

An^. — No ;  I  don't  think  it  was ;  it  may  have  been  in  places. 

Int.  341. — Will  you  bound  it  as  you  understand  it  ? 

Ans. — It  commenced  at  a  point  on  the  Columbia  river,  a 
mile  or  two  above  the  Company's  saw^milU,  followed  the  Co- 
lumbia river  down  some  twenty -five  or  thirty  miloH  to  its  junc- 
tion with  a  small  stream  called  the  Cathlapootl.  From  each 
of  these  points  the  boundaries  would  run  in  a  northerly  direc- 
tion for  ten  miles  distance.  These  were  about  the  lines  of  the 
claim.  The  line  crossed  the  Cathlapootl  river  not  far  from 
its  junction  with  Columbia,  if  I  remember  right. 

Int.  342. — From  what  knowledge  have  you  given  this  de- 
scription of  the  Company's  claim? 

Ans. — From  the  boundaries  of  the  lands  mod  and  occupied 
of  my  own  knowledge.  I  simply  call  it  a  claim,  m  it  is  the 
custom  of  the  country  to  name  such  property,  so  that  the 
claim  of  one  party  might  be  known  from  another. 

Int.  343. — How  many  square  miles  do  you  understand  there 
are  in  the  Company's  claim? 

Ans. — I  look  upon  it  as  two  hundred  and  fifty  square  miles 
or  thereabouts. 

Int.  344.— How  do  you  know  the  line  crossed  the  Cathla- 
pootl ? 


100 


Ans. — That  is  to  the  best  of  my  recollection. 

Int.  345. — How  do  you  know  it  extended  ten  miles  north 
from  each  of  the  points  named? 

Ans. — I  have  been  over  large  portions  of  it  myself,  where 
the  Company  had  bands  of  cattle  and  horses,  pasturing  from 
time  to  time.     In  this  way  I  got  my  knowledge  of  it. 

Int.  346. — Do  you  mean  to  say  the  Company  had  cattle 
and  horses  pasturing  ten  miles  from  Columbia  river  m  a 
northern  direction  from  the  points  which  you  have  mentioned? 

Ana. — Perhaps  not  to  the  extent  of  ten  miles,  as  there  the 
land  became  hilly  and  mountainous.  But  it  was  nothing  un- 
common at  certain  seasons  of  the  year  to  see  bands  of  horses 
feeding  at  distances  of  six  and  eight  miles  back  from  Fort 
Vancouver,  which  must  have  been  in  a  northerly  direction. 

Int.  347. — Have  you  any  other  knowledge  that  the  line  ex- 
tended ten  miles  back? 

Ana, — I  do  not  remember  now.  I  have  had  the  impression 
on  my  mind  all  along  that  it  did. 

Int.  347 J. — What  do  you  mean  by  "recollection  "  of  a  line, 
in  your  answer  to  the  344th  interrogatory  ? 

Ans. — That  is  my  belief  about  it. 

Int.  348. — Can  you  not  answer  the  last  interrogatory  more 
definitely  ? 

,  Ans. — I  looked  upon  the  mouth  of  the  Cathlapootl  as  the 
natural  boundary.  I  have  no  recollection  of  the  line  running 
inland  being  blazed  or  marked  any  way  by  the  Company. 

Int.  349. — Do  you  not  now  see  from  looking  at  a  map,  that 
a  line  running  ten  miles  north  from  the  Cathlapootl  would  not 
■  run  inland,  but  would  run  nearly  parallel  with  the  Columbia 
river  ? 

Ana. — In  giving  my  answer  to  interrogatory  341,  I  did  so 
without  looking  at  a  map,  and  ought  to  have  said  that  the 
lines  should  run  inland  for  ten  miles  from  each  of  the  two 
points  indicated,  in  place  of  saying  in  a  northerly  direction. 
As  on  looking  at  the  map  I  would  have  said  that  the  line  from 
the  point  above  the  saw-mill  will  run  inland  in  a  northerly 
direction,  and  from  the  mouth  of  the  Cathlapootl  in  an  east- 
erly direction. 


101 

Int.  350. — Do  you  mean  to  say,  then,  that  when  you  an- 
swered "Interrogatory  341"  you  did  not  know  enough  about 
the  Company's  claim  to  say  whether  the  line  run  north  or  east? 

Am. — I  have  seen  very  few  maps  of  the  Company's  claim. 
All  my  knowledge  of  it  is  of  a  personal  nature,  and,  without 
some  aid  to  memory  like  a  map,  I  am  not  very  clear  but  that 
I  might  make  a  mistake  when  asked  about  the  compass  lines 
of  the  claim. 

Int.  351. — In  your  answer  to  interrogatory  324,  you  say 
"I  have  no  recollection  of  having  seen  any"  (meaning  a  map 
of  the  Company's  claim.)  What  do  you  mean  in  your  last 
answer  by  saying  "I  have  seen  very  few  maps  of  the  Com- 
pany's claim,"  when  the  map  that  has  been  since  shown  you 
is  not  a  map  of  the  Company's  claim,  but  a  general  map  of 
the  country  ? 

Ans. — In  making  the  reply  to  the  last  interrogatory  I  ought 
to  have  said  maps  on  which  the  Company's  claim  could  be 
traced,  in  place  of  saying  maps  of  the  Company's  claim. 

Int.  352. — How  do  you  know  now  that  the  Company's  claim 
ran  east  for  ten  miles  ? 

Ans. — I  know  from  looking  at  the  map. 

Int.  353. — How  does  the  map  show  that? 

Ans. — The  boundary-line  ran  in  at  right  angles  from  the 
Columbia  river  for  about  ten  miles,  and  the  map  shows  me 
that  that  line  runs  in  an  easterly  direction. 

Int.  354. — Were  you  not  also  mistaken  when  you  thought 
this  line  crossed  the  Cathlapootl  river? 

Ans. — I  am  under  the  impression  that  the  line  crossed  the 
Cathlapootl  river.     I  am  still  of  that  impression. 

Int.  355. — How  do  you  know  it  ran  inland  for  ten  miles — 
so  far  and  no  further  ? 

Ans. — By  remembrance  of  the  boundary. 

Int.  356. — From  the  remembrance  of  what  facts  do  you  give 
this  as  the  boundary? 

Ans. — I  don't  know  that  I  have  anything  to  state  further 
about  it.     That  is  my  recollection  of  the  line. 

Int.  357. — Did  the  Company's  claim  stop  inland  ten  miles 
from  the  mouth  of  the  Cathlapootl  river  ? 


*'•*•*■!«-•  ♦•*-».  •*■«  - 


-•♦•*■**.       W*i*«k_....j4   ., 


102 


fc!  ■   ' 


Ans. — My  knowledge  of  it  certainly  stopped  there. 

Int.  358. — Did  your  knowledge  extend  inland  to  ten  miles? 

Ans. — I  have  heen  round  and  about  there,  but  I  do  not  think 
I  got  out  the  distance  of  ten  miles  inland  from  the  mouth  of 
the  Cathlapootl. 

Int.  359.— Was  your  knowledge  of  the  Company's  claim  so 
slight  that  you  could  not  tell  whether  it  ran  for  ten  miles  uorth 
of  the  Cathlapootl  river,  and  thus  embraced  the  large  tract 
of  land  north  of  that  river,  which,  since  you  have  looked  at 
the  map,  you  say  it  did  not  embrace  ? 

Ans. — In  all  my  rides  over  that  country,  and  they  were 
many,  I  never  carried  a  compass  about  me,  so  that  L  knew  but 
little  as  to  how  the  Company's  lands  at  Fort  Vancouver  would 
show  when  traced  upon  the  map. 

Int.  360. — How  did  you  know  when  you  were  riding  on  the 
Company's  lands  ? 

Ans. — I  knew  that  by  seeing  the  Company's  cattle  and 
horses  feeding  on  the  land. 

Int.  361. — Could  you  not  tell  whether  the  cattle  were  feed- 
ing on  the  north  or  south  side  of  the  Cathlapootl  river ;  and 
if  so,  how  do  you  explain  your  answer  to  the  345th  interroga- 
tory? 

Ans. — The  difference  of  course  has  arisen  from  a  mistake  I 
made  in  the  compass-bearings  of  the  line. 

Int.  362. — Have  you  any  particular  knowledge  of  the 
boundary  of  the  Company's  claim  on  the  east  ? 

Ans. — The  same  as  I  had  of  the  other,  probably  I  remem- 
ber it  better. 

Int.  363. — Did  it  extend  ten  miles  north,  and  no  farther  ? 

Ans. — My  knowledge  of  it  certainly  stopped  there. 

Int.  364. — How  did  the  line  run  from  the  point  ten  miles 
north  of  a  point  a  mile  or  two  beyond  the  saw  mill,  to  the 
point  ten  miles  east  of  the  Cathlapootl? 

Ans. — I  never  was  along  that  line  myself,  I  know  nothing 
about  that  line,  except  that  it  was  rocky  and  poor  and  hilly. 

Int.  365. — How  did  you  make  the  Company's  claim  certain 
250  square  miles  ? 

Ans. — I  calculated  the  front,  twenty -five  miles  by  ten  miles 


103 


in  depth,  which  will  give  the  quantity  stated  or  thereahouts. 

Int.  366.— Did  you  multiply  10  by  25? 

An». — Yes. 
'  Int.  867. — Did  you  not  then  think  when  you  made  this  cal- 
culation that  the  Company's  claim  was  in  the  shape  of  a 
parallelogram  ? 

An». — I  am  not  very  clear  that  I  know  what  shape  it  would 
take  on  paper. 

Int.  368. — How,  then,  did  you  estimate  that  a  tract  of  land, 
twenty-five  miles  front,  with  a  depth  of  ten  miles,  would  con- 
tain 250  square  miles? 

An%. — My  way  of  calculating  it  was  a  v.ery  simple  one ; 
I  multiplied  the  length  by  the  depth,  and  brought  out  the  re- 
sult. 

Int.  369. — Have  you  not  just  said  that  the  claim,  as  laid 
down,  is  a  little  over  250  square  miles  ? 

An%. — So  I  have  been  informed. 

Int.  370. — Have  you  ever  seen  the  Company's  claim  laid 
down? 

An%. — ^Not  that  I  remember  of. 

Int.  371. — Does  not  the  Columbia  river,  just  below  Fort 
Vancouver,  where  it  runs  west,  change  its  course,  and  run 
nearly  north  ? 

Am. — Judging  from  the  map,  I  should  say  it  does. 

Int.  372. — Do  not  the  two  inland  limits  of  the  claim,  as 
given  by  you,  come  within  a  few  miles  of  each  other  ? 

An». — I  scarcely  know,  without  looking  at  a  map  of  the 
claim. 

Int.  373. — Look  at  this  map,  now  shown  you,  marked  "Map 
of  Public  Survey  in  the  Territory  of  Washington,  to  accom- 
pany report  of  Surveyor  General,  1855,"  and  which  you  be- 
fore looked  at  upon  giving  your  answers  to  interrogatories 
349,  351,  and  371,  and  answer  the  previous  question. 

Ans. — Judging  from  the  map  now  shown  to  me,  I  should  say 
they  came  within  a  few  miles  of  one  another. 

Int.  374. — Is  not,  then,  the  Company's  claim,  as  you  have 
described  it,  in  general  shape  a  square,  with  one  corner  cut 
off? 


«,'^ 


104 


Ans. — I  nhould  say  so. 

Int.  375. — How,  then,  can  a  portion  of  a  square,  which  is 
not  more  than  twelve  miles  on  a  side,  contain  more  than  lt50 
square  miles  ? 

Ana. — I  hardly  know. 

Examination  Resumed,  March  26fA. 

Int.  376. — In  your  answer  to  interrogatory  842,  yott  speak 
of  the  boundaries  of  the  lands  "used  and  occupied;"  what 
do  you  mean  by  the  words  '*  used  and  occupied,"  as  distinct 
from  each  other  ? 

Ana — I  don't  know  that  there  is  much  distinction  between 
them. 

Int.  377. — How,  then,  do  you  mean  to  say  you  know  what 
were  the  boundaries  of  the  Company's  claim  ? 

Ans. — My  knowledge  of  them  stopped  at  these  boundaries 
I  have  given  ;  I  did  not  know  anything  further. 

Int.  378. — Why  did  it  extend  to  these  boundaries  ? 

Ans. — Well,  I  knew  that  the  land  within  the  limits  was  used 
and  occupied  for  the  Company's  business. 

Int.  379. — Will  you  give  a  particular  description  of  the 
land  within  these  boundaries  ? 

'  Ana. — The  land  back  of  the  fort  is  heavily  timbered ;  the 
timber  probably  commencing  a  mile  from  the  river.  You  went 
through  that  timber  for  some  distance  until  you  crossed  the 
creek.  Some  little  distance  beyond  this  creek  you  came  upon 
a  succession  of  plains,  one  following  the  other,  known  as  the 
First,  Second,  Third,  and  Fourth  Plains.  Between  each  of 
those  plains  there  were  short  belts  of  timber.  Tho  Fourth 
Plain  was  the  only  one  of  those  plains  of  any  size ;  but  the 
Fourth  Plain  itself  was  very  large.  The  soil  of  all  those 
plains  was  light.  The  Company  cultivated,  previous  to  my 
time,  the  three  first  plains,  and  did  not  find  them  very  produc- 
tive ;  but  with  the  use  of  sheep  for  the  purposes  of  manuring 
the  land,  good  crops  of  grain  could  be  raised.  On  the  Fourth 
Plain  the  Company  used  to  pasture  the  cattle  and  horses,  and 
also  on  the  intervening  plains,  and  at  certain  seasons  of  the 


106 

year  there  was  good  grass  to  be  had  on  them.  The  Fourth 
Plain  was  at  a  distance  of  about  six  miles  from  Fort  Vancou- 
ver, and  about  six  miles  in  circumference,  by  something  over 
three  miles  in  breadth.  Beyond  that  plain,  some  miles,  the 
country  was  heavily  timbered,  with  occasional  glades  or  open- 
ings here  and  there.  From  this  point,  in  an  eastern  direction, 
to  where  it  would  strike  the  Company's  eastern  line,  the  land 
is  of  the  same  character,  heavily  timbered.  Following  that 
eastern  line  to  the  Columbia  river  to  a  point  about  two  miles 
above  the  saw-mill,  it  was  more  or  less  heavilv  timbered.  Two 
miles  below  this  point  you  come  to  the  Company's  saw-mills, 
and  a  mile  below  that  again,  you  come  to  the  grist-mill ;  and 
four  miles  further  down  you  reached  the  Fort  Plain.  From 
the  point  two  miles  above  the  saw-mill,  down  to  this  point  at 
Fort  Plain,  it  is  densely  timbered.  Behind  the  saw  and  grist- 
mills, about  a  mile  distant,  you  come  on  what  is  called  the 
Mill  Plain,  where  the  Company  had  a  farm  of  about  a  thous- 
and acres  under  fence.  Beyond  this  is  another  prairie,  known 
as  the  Camass.  The  mills  are  supplied  by  water  issuing  out 
of  the  bench  of  land  behind.  The  land  generally  described 
in  the  last  sentence  is  of  a  very  fair  quality ;  on  the  Mill 
Plain  requiring  the  use  of  sheep  for  the  purposes  of  manure. 
The  Fort  Plain  is  probably  about  three  miles  in  length,  and 
about  one  in  breadth,  and  contained  a  great  deal  of  good  land; 
some  portions  of  it  subject  to  overflow  in  seasons  of  high  water 
from  the  Columbia  river.  The  back  part  of  this  plain  was  of 
considerable  elevation. 

On  this  plain  the  Company's  establishment  of  Fort  Van- 
couver was  erected,  and  its  out-buildings,  farm,  et  cetera.  I 
have  already  described  the  nature  of  the  country  and  timber, 
going  out  to  the  Fourth  Plain,  which  is  in  a  northeasterly 
direction  from  Fort  Vancouver.  In  a  northerly  direction  from 
the  fort,  several  miles,  the  land  is  heavily  timbered,  but  is  of 
a  fair  quality  when  cleared,  and  there  are  a  good  many  patches 
of  bottom-land  which  are  valuable  and  productive.  Below  the 
Fort  Plain  we  come  to  what  was  known  as  the  Lower  Plain, 
where  the  Company  had  another  farm,  with  dairies,  and  so- 
forth.     The  frontage  on  the  river  of  this  plain  was  about  five 


'I 


; 


106 

miles — very  valuable  land,  having  been  thoi'oughly  cultivated 
and  kept  in  order  by  the  Company.  It  is,  however,  in  years 
of  high  water,  subject  to  inundation. 

From  the  end  of  the  Lower  Plain,  going  down  a  distance  of 
ten  miles,  or,  as  one  may  say,  almost  to  the  Cathlapootl  river, 
the  alluvial  bottom  land  of  the  Columbia  runs  almost  the  whole 
length,  and  is  of  great  extent  and  value  for  purposes  of  pas- 
turage. 

The  width  of  this  tract  is  probably  from  three  to  four" miles 
in  the  average,  and  in  seasons  of  high  water  is  inundated. 

At  such  periods,  one  wishing  to  go  to  the  Cathlapootl  by 
land  from  Fort  Vancouver,  must  follow  the  ridge  or  elevated 
land  to  the  eastward  of  this  tract  of  alluvial  land  which  I 
have  just  described.  The  road  runs  over  rolling  hills,  tim- 
bered, with  a  good  deal  of  dead  wood  amongst  it.  The  land 
along  this  road  is  of  fair  quality.  In  seasons  of  low  water 
you  can  ride  along  through  the  slough  all  the  way  to  the  Cathla- 
pootl. The  neighborhood  of  the  Cathlapootl,  some  distance 
from  its  mouth,  the  land  is  generally  of  a  fair  quality,  and 
partly  timbered  and  partly  not. 

Int.  380. — You  speak  of  the  Fourth  Plain  as  six  miles  in 
circumference  and  three  miles  in  breadth ;  do  you  not  know 
that  these  two  measurements  are  inconsistent  ? 

^n«. — I  suppose  that  I  mean  by  that,  that  the  longest  part 
of  the  plain  is  three  miles,  or  thereabouts. 

Int.  881. — Will  you  give  an  estimate  of  the  quantity  of 
cleared  land  on  the  Company's  claim  ? 

Ans. — I  am  unable  to  say  at  this  distance  of  time.  . 

Int.  882. Did  the  Company  use  all  the  cleared  land  on 

this  claim  ? 

Awi. — There  were  seasons  of  high  water,  when  the  river 
bottoms  were  not  available  for  pasture,  and  the  stock  had  to 
be  driven  wherever  grass  could  be  found.  In  that  way.  no 
doubt,  all  the  plains  were  made  use  of,  and  also  the  timbered 
portions  of  the  land,  in  order  to  find  pasturage.  Again,  in 
the  winter  months,  when  there  was  pastm*age  in  the  river  bot- 
toms, the  wooded  portions  of  the  land  sheltered  the  stock  in 
bad  weather.  '        > 


107 


Int.  883. — With  what  care  were  the  Company's  cattle  at- 
tended ? 

Ana. — They  were  watched  and  guarded  by  men  appointed 
for  the  purpose. 

Int.  384. — How  many  men  did  the  Company  appoint  for 
this  purpose? 

Ana. — There  was  generally  a  head-man,  a  herder,  a  white 
man,  with  a  sufficient  number  of  Indians  as  assistants. 

Int.  385. — What  was  the  duty  of  this  herdsman  and  his  as- 
sistants? 

Ans. — They  camped  out  with  the  different  bands  of  cattle, 
and  watched  that  they  had  wherewith  to  eat  and  that  they 
did  not  go.  astray. 

Int.  386. — What  was  the  character  of  the  cattle? 

Ans. — I  think  they  were  principally  of  the  California  stock, 
those  that  were  herded  out  in  this  way.  There  was,  however, 
at  the  diflFerent  dairies  a  number  of  cows  of  improved  breeds, 
which  were  kept  and  guarded  in  the  neighborhood  of  the 
dairies. 

Int.  387. — Were  not  most  of  the  herded  cattle  of  the  Span- 
ish breed  and  very  wild  ? 

Ana. — In  this  country  they  would  probably  be  considered 
wild,  but  there  they  were  not  so  considered,  as  the  cattle  keep- 
ers had  no  difficulty  in  managing  them. 

Int.  388. — What  had  the  keeping  of  these  cattle  to  do  with 
the  fur  trade  of  the  Company  ? 

Ans. — The  Company's  ships  or  vessels  required  beef  to 
feed  the  seamen,  and  I  have  understood,  so  soon  as  they  could 
manage  it,  it  was  in  view  to  issue  a  meat  ration  to  the  Com- 
pany's servants  in  place  of  fish. 

Int.  389. — How  were  these  cattle  killed  ? 

Ans. — I  have  no  personal  knowledge  of  it.  I  was  away 
from  the  country  when  they  disappeared. 

Int.  390. — Did  not  the  Company  shoot  the  cattle  when  they 
wanted  beef? 

Ans. — ^Not  in  my  day. 

Int.  391.— In  your  answer  to  cross-interrogatory  19,  of  the 
previous   examination,  you  estimate  the  numbe^r  of  cattle, 


108 


!'., 


I 


sheep,  and  horses  at  Vancouver;  did  the  Company  keep  any 
record  of  the  number  of  these  cattle,  sheep,  and  horses? 

Arts, — I  believe  they  did. 

Int.  392. — In  what  accounts  will  this  record  be  found? 

An$. — I  hardly  remember  what  books  it  will  be  found  in, 
but  there  must  be  a  record  somewhere. 

Int.  893. — ^What  proportion  of  the  Company's  cattle  were 
protected  and  fed  during  the  winter? 

An%. — It  depended  very  much  on  the  weather.  If  the  win- 
ter was  a  fine  one,  the  cattle  required  but  little  assistance. 
On  other  occasions,  when  there  was  snow  on  the  ground,  the 
cattle  would  be  driven  along  to  the  neighborhood  of  the  barns 
of  the  fort,  the  Lower  and  Mill  Plains,  where  there  was  gen- 
erally lots  of  straw  and  other  fodder,  which  was  given  to  them 
to  eat.  Thus  they  would  get  through  the  periods  of  bad 
weather  without  suffering  much. 

Int.  894. — Were  not  a  great  many  cattle  lost  in  the  winter 
from  time  to  time  ? 

Ans. — I  don't  know  that  there  were  absolutely  many.  In 
very  severe  winters  some  of  the  cattle  might  perish,  but  such 
winters  were  the  exceptions,  not  the  rule,  as  regarded  the 
climate  in  that  locality. 

Int.  895. — Did  you  not,  in  answer  to  cross-interrogatory  20, 
of  the  previous  cross-examination,  say  "  there  must  have  been 
a  good  many  cattle  lost  in  the  winter  from  time  to  time  ?  " 

Ana. — I  said  so,  no  doubt. 

Int.  396. — ^Were  the  herdsmen  allowed  to  drive  the  cattle 
where  they  pleased  ? 

Ans. — I  do  not  know  what  instructions  were  given  to  the 
herdsmen. 

Int.  397. — How  far  below  Fort  Vancouver  did  you  ever  see 
the  herdsmen  camping  with  their  cattle  ? 

An%. — I  don't  remember  how  far  I  have  seen  them  ;  it  was 
a  long  way  down. 

Int.  398. — Did  you  ever  see  them  herding  the  cattle  within 
three  miles  of  the  Cathlapootl  river  ? 

Ana. — The  cattle  were  down  at  the  Cathlapootl  river,  but 


109 


I  don't  remember  seeing  the  herdsmen  with  them,  but  they 
might  have  been. 

Int.  899. — Did  the  Company's  herdsmen  ever  receive  any 
instructions  as  to  what  was  the  boundary  of  the  Company's 
claim  ? 

Am. — I  can't  say  what  instructions  the  Company's  herds- 
men received ;  I  had  no  control  of  them  myself. 

Int.  400. — Did  you,  previous  to  1846,  ever  know  that  the 
Company's  claim  had  any  particular  boundaries  ? 

Ans. — I  don't  know  that  I  knew  of  it  in  any  other  shape 
than  as  I  have  already  said,  that  the  Company  used  such  and 
such  lands. 

Int.  401. — Do  you  not  know  that  the  Company's  herdsmen 
herded  their  cattle  wherever  there  was  grass,  without  any  re- 
gard to  who  owned  the  lands  ? 

Ans. — They  may  have  done  so,  but  I  certainly  knew  noth- 
ing about  it. 

Int.  402. — How  then  did  you  know  that  the  Company  used 
the  land  within  the  boundaries  you  have  given  ? 

Ans. — I  knew  it  from  seeing  the  cattle  about,  and  from 
other  operations,  farming,  &c.,  going  on  upon  the  Company'« 
lands. 

Int.  403. — Do  you  mean  to  say  that  you  know  that  the 
Company  used  all  the  tract  you  have  described  for  pasturage 
and  farming  operations  ? 

Ans. — To  the  best  of  my  knowledge  and  belief,  the  Com- 
pany did  use  the  tract  of  land  for  the  purposes  mentioned, 
and  for  other  purposes. 

Int.  404. — Did  they  use  this  tract  and  no  more  ? 

Ans. — I  cannot  say  that ;  I  can  only  speak  as  to  my  own 
recollection  of  things.  The  Company  may  have  used  more  or 
they  may  have  used  less.  While  I  was  there  I  did  not  repre- 
sent the  Company  in  any  way. 

Int.  405. — Do  you  recollect  that  the  Company  used  all  this 
tract,  and  no  more  ? 

Ans. — I  do  not. 

Int.  406. — Do  you  recollect  that  they  used  all  this  tract  ? 

Ans. — I  believe  they  used  all  the  tract,  but  I  cannot  say 


[i 


no 

that  they  did  so,  because  I  did  not  represent  the  Oompany 
there  at  the  time. 

Int.  407. — Why  then  in  your  answer  to  "interrogatory  404" 
did  you  say  they  may  hav«  used  less? 

Ans. — I  did  so  for  the  same  reason,  that  I  did  not  represent 
the  Company  at  the  time,  and  could  not  say  what  the  Com- 
pany did  in  the  matter. 

Int.  408. — Do  you  mean  to  say  that  you  do  not  know  whether 
the  Company  used  this  tract  of  land  or  not? 

Ana. — I  believe  they  did  use  it. 

Int.  409. — Why  do  you  believe  that  they  used  a  tract  of 
land,  when  in  your  answer  to  interrogatory  404  you  say  they 
may  have  used  less? 

Ans. — I  have  not  said  that  the  Company  used  loss  of  the 
tract  of  land  in  question,  and  I  therefore  believe  that  the  Com- 
pany did  use  it. 

Int.  410. — Have  you  not  delayed  answering  this  previous 
question  for  more  than  half  an  hour,  during  which  time  you 
have  been  holding  the  manuscript  in  your  hands  and  consid- 
ering the  question,  while  the  counsel  have  been  waiting  for 
you? 

(Mr.  Lander  objects  to  this  interrogatory  immaterial, 
irrelevant,  and  impertinent  to  the  present  inqu    /.) 

Examination  Beaumedy  March  27. 

AvM. — I  believe  that  such  is  the  case. 

Int.  411. — Have  you  not  defined  the  Company's  claim  as 
contained  within  certain  boundaries,  because,  as  you  said,  you 
knew  the  land  within  those  boundaries  was  used  and  occupied 
by  the  Company? 

Ans. — I  did  so,  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge  and  belief. 
•  Int.  412. — Why  do  you  believe  the  Company  used  and  occu- 
pied this  tract  of  land? 

An». — I  never  professed  to  have  been  all  over  this  tract  of 
land.  But  I  knew  that  the  Company  was  carrying  on  a  large 
business  of  various  kinds  at  Fort  Vancouver,  and  that,  besides 
agricultural  operations,  they  had  large  bands  of  cattle,  stock. 


T 


111 

and  horses,  requiring  much  land  for  their  sustenance,  for 
which  purpose  the  lands  in  question  were  used. 

Int.  418. — Can  you  not  answer  the  last  question  more  defi- 
nitely ? 

Ans. — With  the  knowledge  of  the  fact  stated,  I  believe  that 
the  lands  were  so  occupied. 

Int.  414. — Why  do  you  believe  that  the  line  Troin  the  mouth 
of  the  Cattlapootl  ran  eastward? 

^«».-My  ide^  or  impression  of  the  line  was  that  it  ran  in- 
ward from  that  ;-»oint.  My  belief  as  to  its  running  easterly  is 
in  consequence  of  studying  the  map  shown  to  mo  a  day  or 
two  ago. 

Int.  415. — Where  did  you  get  the  impression  that  it  ran 
inland  ? 

Ans. — I  suppose  I  must  have  picked  it  up  somewhere. 

Int.  416. — Do  you  distinctly  remember  to  have  had  this  im- 
pression before  1846  ? 

An%. — I  cannot  say. 

Int.  417. — Do  you  distinctly  rciicmber  to  have  had  this  im- 
pression before  1860? 

Ann. — Y'-s. 

Int.  4l8. — State  when  and  where  you  first  remember  to  have 
had  it  previous  to  1860  ? 

An%. — It  must  have  been  while  residing  at  Fort  Vancouver, 
from  1853.  Probably  my  informant  was  the  late  Mr.  Peter 
Ogden,  deceased,  who,  while  alive,  was  the  chief  factor  of  the 
CoTipany  at  Vancouver. 

Int.  419. — Who  succeeded  Mr.  Ogden  as  chief  factor  ? 

An%. — I  did. 

Int.  420. — Is  your  knowledge  that  the  line  ran  inland  noth- 
ing more  than  an  impression,  which,  you  say,  was  "probably" 
derived  from  Mr.  Ogden  ? 

Ans. — I  may  have  been  aware  of  it  in  1846 ;  but  Mr.  Ogden 
was  good  authority  on  the  subject,  as  he  was  one  of  the  Com- 
pany's chief  factors,  stationed  at  Fort  Vancouver. 

Int.  421. — Do  you  distinctly  remember  that  Mr.  Ogden  told 
you  that  the  line  ran  inland  ? 


112 

Ans. — No ;  I  do  not  distinctly  remember,  but  I  think  it  very 
likely  that  he  did. 

Int.  422. — W*" J  do  you  think  it  very  likely  that  he  did  ? 

An8. — I  cannot  give  any  particular  reason  about  it. 

Int.  423. — Why  do  you  say  the  line  ran  inland  for  ten  miles, 
so  far  and  no  farther  ? 

Ana. — So  far  as  my  kno'srledge  went,  the  line  ran  that  dis- 
tance, or  thereabout. 

Int.  424. — What  do  you  mean  by  "so  far  as  my  knowledge 
went?" 

Ans. — That  is  my  recollection  of  the  distance. 

Int.  425. — How  do  you  recollect  this  was  the  distance  ? 

Ans. — That  is  the  impression  on  my  mind. 

Int.  426. — How  do  you  account  for  this  impression  on  your 
mind? 

Ans. — I  don't  know  that  I  can  account  for  it.  I  presume 
my  memory  has  something  to  do  with  it. 

Int.  427. — What  do  you  remember  in  regard  to  it  ? 

Ans. — So  far  as  I  remember,  that  was  the  distance,  or  there- 
abouts, the  line  ran  inland. 

Int.  428. — Have  you  any  distinct  remembrance  in  regard 
to  it? 

Ans. — I  do  not  know  that  I  remember  anything  very  dis- 
tinctly about  It.     That  is  the  impression  on  my  mind. 

Int.  429. — Can  you  account  for  the  impression  that  the  line 
extended  for  ten  miles  any  more  satisfactorily  than  for  the 
impression  that  it  extended  inland? 

Ans. — Nothing  more  than  a  matter  of  memory. 

Int.  430. — Has  your  knowledge  of  this  line,  which  you  hare 
an  impression  extended  inland  for  ten  miles,  anything  to  do 
with  a  distinct  recollection  that  the  Company  used  the  lands 
up  to  thic  line,  and  no  farther,  and  for  the  distance  of  ten 
miles  from  the  river,  and  no  farther? 

Ans. — Previous  to  1846,  the  period  of  time  of  which  I  am 
now  speaking,  my  position  as  a  subordinate  at  Fort  Vancouver 
was  such  that  I  really  could  not  state  distinctly  what  the  Com- 
pany did  do  in  the  matter. 

Int.  431. — What  do  you  mean  by  "did  do  in  the  matter?" 


i  'I 


i\' 


118 


Ans. — I  ret'ei  to  the  words  in  the  previous  iritorrogatorj, 
as  follows:  "o.  distinct  recollection  that  the  Conipatiy  used 
the  lands  up  to  this  line,  and  no  farther,  and  for  the  dintance 
of  ten  miles  from  the  river,  and  no  farther." 

Int.  432. — Do  you  mean  to  say  that  you  arc  unable  to  state 
distinctly 'what  lands  the  Company  used  prcviou»  to  1840? 

Ans. — No  farther  than  my  knowledge  and  belief  of  the 
same  goes. 

Int.  433. — State,  then,  in  reference  to  this  lino,  how  near  it, 
and  how  far  along  it,  you  know  of  your  own  knowledge  that 
the  Company  used  the  land  previous  to  184.0. 

Ans. — I  have  certainly  not  been  along  all  the  line.  I  have 
been  down  to  the  Cathlapootl,  and  along  it  for  Honic  distance, 
where  I  saw  the  Company's  cattle  about.  I  do  not  remember 
how  far  I  wept  there,  or  the  number  of  cattle  I  Haw. 

Int.  434. — Did  you  see  cat'Jo  more  than  a  mile  distant  from 
the  Columbia  ? 

Ans. — My  impression  is  that  it  was  a  greater  di«tan«ie  than 
that  from  the  Columbia. 

Int.  435. — In  what  year  and  what  season  of  the  year  did 
you  see  these  cattle? 

Ans. — I  think  it  was  as  far  back  as  1844,  and  I  think  it  was 
sometime  in  the  spring. 

Int.  436. — Do  you  know  anything  more  of  this  occupation 
previous  to  1846? 

Ans. — I  believe  I  was  down  there  another  time.  1  think  it 
was  sometime  in  the  spring  of  184.'j.  I  may  have  been  down 
there  at  other  times  previous  to  1840,  I  do  not  r«!mcmber 
about  "t. 

Int.  437. — Do  you  know  any  thing  raoro  of  the  occupation 
of  this  line  previous  to  1846? 

Ans. — Not  of  my  own  personal  knowledge. 

Int.  438. — State  all  that  you  know  of  the  occupation  of 
the  land  along  this  line  by  the  Company  since  1H40? 

Ans. — I  left  the  country  in  January,  1847,  and  have  no 
personal  knowledge  of  what  the  Company  did  there  after  1846. 

Int.  439. — Why  do  you  say  that  the  lino  of  tho  Company's 
8B 


i] 


k 


k      i 


114 

claim  on  the  cast  began  at  a  point  about  two  miles  cast  of  the 
saw-mill  and  extended  north  for  ten  miles  ? 

Ans. — That  is  my  recollection  of  it. 

Int.  440. — When  does  your  recollection  of  this  line  begin  ? 

Ans. — Previous  to  1846. 

Int.  441. — What  do  you  first  recollect  of  this  line? 

Ans. — My  impression  is  there  was  some  blazing  or  cutting 
the  trees  some  distance  from  the  river. 

Int.  442. — Do  you  distinctly  remember  to  have  had  this  im- 
pression previous  to  1860? 

Ans. — I  think  so. 

Int.  443. — Did  you  ever  sec  these  blazes? 

Ans. — I  have  some  recollection  of  seeing  them. 

Int.  444. — State  all  that  you  distinctly  recollect  about  these 
blazes  ? 

Ans. — I  recollect  the  trees  blazed  there  about  a  mile  in- 
ii.,nd;  the  trees  were  blazed  here  and  there. 

Int.  445. — When  do  you  recollect  to  have  seen  these  blazed 
trees  ? 

Ans. — It  was  a  long  time  ago.     I  can't  say  the  time.  '\ 

Int.  446.— Was  it  previous  to  1846  ?  ' 

Ans. — I  think  so. 

Int.  447. — Why  did  you,  a  subordinate  oflScer  of  the  Com- 
pany, go  to  this  eastern  boundary  and  see  these  blazed  trees  ? 

Ans. — Previous  to  1846,  I  had  to  go  up  the  Columbia  river 
in  boats,  when  we  always  passed  by  the  mill  and  so  on  above. 
On  such  occasions  the  boats  were  close  in-shore,  and  I  believe 
my  attention  was  drawn  to  some  of  these  blazed  trees,  and  I 
went  on  shore  and  looked  at  them. 

Int.  448. — Do  you  know  any  thing  more  about  theso  blazed 
trees  ? 

Ans. — I  don't  know  that  I  remember  much  more  about  them. 

Int.  449. — How  do  you  know  that  this  line  extended  ten 
miles  and  no  farther? 

Ans. — My  recollection  of  the  line  is  that  it  went  inland  ten 
miles  or  thereabouts. 

Int.  450. — How  long  a  distance  do  you  think  that  you  re- 
member that  you  saw  that  the  trees  were  blazed? 


115 


Ans. — From  a  quarter  to  half  a  mile. 

Int.  451. — How  do  you  remember  any  thing  about  the  line 
beyond  that? 

Ans. — The  line  was  an  imaginary  line,  but  as  far  as  a  person 
going  along  could  guess  the  line,  it  was  pretty  much  in  timber, 
all  the  way  the  ten  miles  through. 

Int.  452. — Please  to  state  how  you  remember  the  length  and 
direction  of  an  imaginary  line. 

Ans. — I  do  not  mean  that  the  line  was  an  air-line,  or  with- 
out reality,  in  making  use  of  the  word  imaginary.  I  meant 
simply  by  that,  that  the  distance  of  ten  miles,  not  being  blazed 
throughout,  a  man  like  me,  in  trying  to  follow  it  out  through 
timber,  could  not  be  always  certain  of  moving  in  a  straight 
line,  though  it  might  be  in  a  northern  direction. 

Int.  453. — Please  answer  "interrogatory  451"  more  defi- 
nitely? 

Ans. — The  line  is  in  timber;  I  don't  know  that  I  have  been 
out  the  exact  distance  of  it;  I  have  been  a  greater  distance 
out  than  ten  miles  from  the  point  of  its  commencement;  but 
I  could  not  say  that  I  followed  the  line  throughout,  though 
I  must  have  been  close  to  it. 

Int.  454. — Why  do  you  say  this  line  was  ten  miles  long  or 
thereabouts  ? 

Ans. — That  is  my  recollection  of  the  length  of  it. 

Int.  455. — Did  you  ever  see  it  represented  on  a  map  ? 

Ans. — I  have  no  recollection  to  have  done  so. 

Int.  456. — Did  you  ever  see  it  marked  on  the  land,  except 
by  the  blazes  which  you  think  you  remember  to  have  snen  for 
a  quarter  to  half  a  mile  ? 

Ans. — Not  that  I  recollect  of. 

Int.  457. — How  then  do  you  recollect  that  the  line  extended 
ten  miles  ? 

Ans. — My  recollection  of  that  line  is  of  an  old  date.  I  be- 
lieve its  length  to  have  been  ten  miles  or  thereabouts. 

Int.  458. — How  can  you  recollect  the  length  of  a  line  m  hich 
you  never  saw  in  fact,  or  represented  on  a  map? 

Ans. — Somebody  who  knew,  no  doubt,  told  me  of  it. 


116 

Int.  459. — You  mean,  then,  to  be  understood  as  saying  that 
your  knowledge  of  the  length  of  this  line  is  derived  from  what 
somebody  may  have  told  you  ? 

Ans. — My  knowledge  may  have  come  to  me  in  that  way. 

Int.  460. — Do  you  remember  any  other  way  it  came  to  you? 

Ana. — I  do  not  remember  now. 

Int.  461. — Do  you  distinctly  remember  any  particular  per- 
son that  told  you  the  line  extended  ten  miles? 

Ans. — I  cannot  distinctly  state;  I  think  it  not  improbable 
that  I  had  the  information  from  the  late  Mr.  Ogden. 

Int.  462. — Are  you  able  to  state  of  your  own  knowledge 
whether  the  land  was  used  by  the  Company  up  to  this  line 
and.no  farther,  and  along  it  for  ten  miles  and  no  farther? 

Ans. — I  am  unable  of  my  own  knowledge  to  say. 

Int.  463. — What  can  you  state  from  your  own  knowledge 
of  the  use  by  the  Company  of  the  land  along  this  lino? 

Ans. — A  good  deal  of  timber  for  logs  was  cut  along  it  in 
places. 

Int.  464. — Was  the  timber  cut  close  up  to  this  line  and  no 
farther? 

Ans. — There  may  have  been  timber  cut  on  both  sides  of  the 
line. 

Int.  465. — Do  you  know  of  any  other  reason  why  the  Com- 
pany cut  timber  in  one  place  more  than  another,  except  that 
it  was  convenient  and  suitable? 

Ans. — I  suppose  such  reason  had  something  to  do  with  the 
cutting  of  the  timber,, though  I  know  nothing  of  such  myself. 

Int.  466. — Was  there  not  timber  along  the  whole  length  of 
this  line,  so  far  as  you  could  guess,  (see  answer  to  "interrog- 
atory, 451  ?" 

Ans. — So  far  as  I  could  judge,  the  line  ran  through  timber 
the  whole  way. 

Int.  467. — How  far  from  the  river  along  this  line  did  the 
Company  cut  timber? 

Ans. — Previous  to  1846  there  was  a  good  deal  of  timber 
cut,  but  I  scarcely  remember  how  far  back  they  had  cut  from 
the  river. 


RJ 


117 


Examination  Resumed,  March  28th. 


Int.  468. — How  much  land  had  the  Company  cut  over  about 
the  mill  previous  to  1846? 

Ans. — I  am  unable  to  say. 

Int.  469. — How  much  land  has  now  been  cut  over  by  the 
Company? 

Ans. — I  can't  say. 

Int.  470. — Do  you  know  what  was  the  line  of  the  Company's 
claim  on  the  back,  joining  the  two  points  you  have  described 
as  ten  miles  from  the  river? 

Ans. — I  never  went  along  the  line.  I  know,  however,  there 
is  a  dense  growth  of  timber  there  and  unfit  for  pasturage, 
owing  to  the  thick  undergrowth  of  bushes. 

Int.  471. — Do  you  know  how  this  line  ran? 

Ans. — I  was  not  aware  of  it  until  looking  at  the  general 
map  shown  me  the  other  day. 

Int.  472. — How  did  that  map  show  you  how  the  line  ran? 

Ans. — According  to  the  map  now  before  me,  which  appears 
to  be  a  copy  on  a  reduced  scale  of  the  map  referred  to  in 
the  testimony  of  Edward  Giddings,  taking  ten  square  miles 
inland  at  either  end,  at  the  Cathlapootl  river,  and  at  a  point 
on  the  Columbia  river  two  miles  above  the  saw-mill,  the  dis- 
tance between  the  two  points  was  not  apparently  a  long  one, 
which  I  presume  would  form  the  back  line  of  the  Company's 
lands. 

Int.  473. — Have  you  no  other  knowledge  of  this  line  than 
what  you  get  from  this  map? 

Ans. — I  have  no  knowledge  how  the  line  would  run  on  the 
land  itself,  never  having  followed  it  out. 

Int.  474. — Do  you  know  that  previous  to  1846  the  Company 
claimed  the  land  back  to  this  line  and  no  farther. 

Ans. — Holding,  as  I  did,  a  subordinate  position  while  at 
Fort  Vancouver,  previous  to  1846, 1  had  no  means  of  knowing 
what  the  Company  did  in  the  matter. 

Int.  475. — Do  you  know  that,  previous  to  1860,  the  Com- 
pany claimed  the  land  back  to  this  line,  and  no  farther  ? 


ii  .. 


« 


118 

Ans. — I  have  no  knowledge  as  to  what  the  Company  actu- 
ally claimed. 

Int.  476. — Have  you  not  as  much  knowledge  of  what  the 
Company  claimed  in  this  direction  as  in  any  other? 

Ans. — My  knowledge  of  the  Company's  lands  in  the  neigh- 
borhood of  Fort  Van'  ouver  is  a  belief  as  to  what  the  Com- 
pany had  used  and  occupied  for  the  purposes  of  their  business 
there  previous  to  1846.  My  knoAvledge  as  to  what  lands  the 
Company  actually  claimed  at  Fort  Vancouver  and  its  neighbor- 
hood previous  to  1846  is  a  mere  matter  of  supposition  on  my 
part. 

Int.  477. — Can  you  not  answer  the  last  inteiTOgatory  more 
definitely  ? 

Ans. — Referring  to  my  answer  to  the  last  interrogatory,  it 
will  be  at  once  seen  that  I  have  no  personal  knowledge  as  to 
what  land  the  Company  actually  claimed  on  that  line  or  on 
any  other,  as  regards  the  lands  in  the  neighborhood  of  Fort 
Vancouver.     This  answer  embraces  even  the  present  time. 

Int.  478. — Do  you  know  that  the  Company  at  any  time  used 
and  occupied  the  lands  up  to  this  back  line  and  no  farther? 

Ans. — Previous  to  1846,  while  I  was  ut  Fort  Vancouver,  in 
a  subordinate  position,  I  really  could  not  say  what  the  Com- 
pany did  in  reference  to  this  back  line  of  their  lands  at  that 
po¥it.  While  I  had  charge  of  the  place,  between  the  years 
1S54  and  1858,  I  am  not  aware  that  the  Company  occupied  or 
used  the  lands  up  to  this  line. 

Int.  479. — Is  not  the  answer  you  have  given  to  the  last  ques- 
tion equally  true  in  regard  to  the  '.ands  up  to  the  other  lines 
which  you  have  given  as  the  Company's  claim? 

Ans. — With  respect  to  the  line  at  the  mouth  of  the  Cathla- 
pootl  river,  running  inland,  the  same  answer  will  apply,  and 
also  on  the  line  running  inland  from  a  point  two  miles  above 
the  saw-mills,  save  and  except  between  the  years  1854  and 
1858,  while  I  was  at  Fort  Vancouver,  in  charge,  when  the  farm 
on  the  Mill  Plain  was  still  in  the  occupation  of  the  Company. 
The  eastern  end  of  that  farm  would  probably  come  close  to  the 
Company's  line. 


!  'i 


119 


Int.  480. — When  was  Mr.  Ballenden  chief  factor  in  charge 
at  Vancouver? 

Am. — While  the  late  Mr.  Ballenden  was  in  charge  of  Fort 
.Vancouver  I  was  not  there,  but  to  the  best  of  my  recollection 
he  was  in  charge  of  the  place  from  December,  1851,  until 
sometime  in  March,  1853. 

Int.  481. — Did  not  Mr.  Ballenden  designate  certain  lands 
as  claimed  by  the  Company  at  that  time  ? 

Ans. — I  cannot  say  what  Mr.  Ballenden  did. 

Int.  482. — Do  you  not  know  that  at  that  time  he  designated 
certain  lands  as  claimed  by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  the 
record  of  which  was  made  at  the  Surveyor  General's  Office  of 
Washington  Territory? 

Ans. — He  may  have  done  so,  but  I  have  no  recollection  of 
what  he  did  in  the  matter.  ^ 

Int.  483. — What  part  of  the  land  contained  in  the  Com- 
pany's claim  about  Fort  Vancouver,  as  you  have  given  it,  was 
ever  to  your  knowledge  used  and  occupied  by  the  Company? 

Ans. — Previous  to  1846,  and  commencing  on  the  Columbia 
river  at  a  point  two  miles  above  the  saw-mill,  there  was  first 
the  saw-mill  itself,  with  its  dam,  race,  &c.,  with  conveniences 
for  loading  ships.  There  were  a  great  many  houses  about  the 
mill,  occupied  by  the  Company's  people,  with  stables  for  oxen 
and  horses,  and  shqds  for  the  lumber  ;  also  a  good  deal  of  land 
used  for  gardens,  in  which  potatoes  and  other  produce  were 
raised.  Connected  with  the  saw-mill,  and  about  a  mile  below 
it,  was  the  grist-mill,  with  its  run  of  water,  &c.  About  a  mile 
back  from  the  saw-mill  there  was  a  plain  of  great  extent,  on 
which  the  Company  had  a  farm  of  about  a  thousand  acres 
under  fence,  and  all  very  thoroughly  cultivated,  with  farm 
buildings,  barns,  stables,  and  such  like  necessary  appendages 
to  the  proper  working  of  an  operation  of  the  kind.  Outside 
of  the  Company's  fence  on  this  plain  there  was  a  good  deal  of 
open  land,  which  was  not  fenced,  for  the  reason  that  it  was 
broken  up  in  such  a  way  by  the  surrounding  woods  that  it 
was  inconvenient  to  fence  it.  ■  The  eastern  end  of  that  plain 
came  very  near  what  I  consider  the  boundary  to  the  east  of 
the  Company's  land.     Passing  from  this  plain  in  a  northern 


t'I^*"WW 


i  1 


120  •    '. 

direction,  you  came  through  beii»"of  timber  interspersed  with 
plains,  until  reaching  the  Fourth  Plain,  which  I  have  already 
described.  The  Company's  line  would  pass  considerably  to 
the  eastward  of  this  plain,  and  would  run  out  to  its  extent  of 
ton  miles,  or  thereabouts,  with  a  country  more  or  less  densely 
timbered,  with  openings  hero  and  there,  and  a  good  deal  of 
grass  at  times  to  be  picked  up  there.  The  land  to  the  west- 
ward, from  that  point  five  or  six  miles,  is  of  much  the  same 
nature,  with  timber  and  openings  hero  and  there,  from  which 
point,  coming  back  to  the  Columbia  river  in  a  southerly  direc- 
tion, we  find  ourselves  at  Fort  Vancouver,  between  which  and 
the  grist-mill  there  is  a  distance  of  about  five  miles.  On  the 
Fort  Plain,  which  is  about  three  miles  in  length  by  one  in 
breadth,  stood  the  Company's  establishment  at  Fort  Vancou- 
ver, consisting,  as  already  described,  of  a  stockaded  enclosure, 
with  its  surrounding  improvements  and  gardens,  farms,  &c. 

ExamirMtion  Resumed,  March  29.  -    ' 

Every  portion  of  this  plain,  high  or  low  land,  where  a  plough 
could  be  used,  had  been  cultivated.  At  the  upper  end  of  the 
plain,  on  the  elevated  plateau  close  to  the  timber,  there  was  a 
residence  known  as  Dundas  Castle,  and  close  to  the  river  there 
was  a  large  field  under  fence,  where  barns  and  other  agricul- 
tural buildings  stood.  Further  down  and  still  close  to  the 
river  theic  were  one  or  two  more  dwelling-houses,  with  a  long 
range  of  stables.  The  fort  itself  stood  back  from  the  river 
from  a  half  to  three-quarters  of  a  mile,  and  covering  with  i*8 
surroundings  and  cemetery  a  large  space  of  ground.  There 
were  two  or  three  landings  on  the  river  as  connected  with  the 
fort,  at  the  lower  one  of  which  there  was  a  jetty  or  Avharf,  with 
a  large  warehouse  known  as  the  salmon  store.  Proceeding 
down  the  river  a  distance  of  five  miles  from  the  lower  end  of 
the  Fort  Plain,  this  tract  includes  the  Company's  farm  on  the 
Lower  Plain,  at  which  there  were  farm  buildings  of  various 
kinds,  such  as  barns,  dairies,  piggeries,  &c.  Below  this  point 
commenced  what  I  call  the  alluvial  lands  of  the  Columbia  river, 
running  down  that  stream  close  to  the  Cathlapootl  river,  ac- 


I. 


r 


121 

oording  to  my  estimate,  a  distance  of  ten  miles  in  length,  or 
thereabouts,  with  a  breadth  of  from  three  to  four  miles.     On 
these  alluvial  lands,  when  the  state  of  the  water  would  permit 
of  it,  the  great  bulk  of  the  Company's  cattle  and  horses  were 
pastured  and  herded;  and  I  have  often  seen  them  there  at  a 
distance  below  Fort  Vancouver  of  certainly  not  less  than  ten 
miles.     At  a  point  on  the  rivfr  about  six  miles  below  Van- 
couver there  was  the  salmon  fishery,  to  which  I  have  already 
made  reference,  and  about  two  miles  farther  down  the  river 
was  the  point  where  people  travelling  through  the  country 
took  ferry  to  cross  the  Columbia  by  Sauvie's  Island.     On  the 
Lower  Plain  farm  were  pastured  all  the  dairy  cattle,  together 
with  the  horses  working  there,  with  a  great  number  of  hogs 
that  used  to  keep  fat  there  rooting  in  the  soft  ground  after 
the  waters  had  receded.     On  the  Fort  Plain  also  cattle  and 
horses  and  hogs  in  the  same  manner  were  sustained,  and  on  the 
more  elevated  parts  of  the  plain  there  were  sheep  pastured.    In 
the  summer  months  of  the  year,  when  the  water  was  high  in  the 
Columbia,  it  was  necessary  to  remove  all  the  cattle  and  horses 
from  the  alluvial  bottoms  of  the  Columbia  river,  and  pastur- 
age found  for  them  on  the  high  lands.     In  this  way  I  have 
seen  all  the  country  back  of  Fort  Vancouver,  for  the  distance 
of  probably  eight  miles,  occupied  by  stock-feeding  and  pas- 
turing, under  the  care  of  men  looking  after  them.     On  the 
Mill  Plain  outside  of  the  fenced  land  there  Avere  cattle  and 
horses   and  sheep  that  fed  and   pastured   there,    and  back 
through  belts  of  timber  and  openings  to  the  Fourth  Plain. 
Besides  which  I  have  seen  cattle  at  the  Cathlapootl  river,  but 
do  not  remember  to  have  seen  herdsmen  with  them.     From 
the  Mill  Plain  there  was  a  road  cut  down  to  the  saw-mill,  one 
to  the  grist-mill,  and  also  one  of  some  length  cut  through  the 
timber,  coming  out  at  the  upper  end  of  the  Fort  Plain,  and 
placing  Fort  Vancouver  in  connection  with  the  Mill  Plain — 
all  three  wagon  roads.     There  was  also  cut  through  the  tim- 
ber a  road  from  the  saw-mill  to  the  grist-mill,  and  from  the 
grist-mill  to  the  upper  end  of.  the  Fort  Plain ;  this  road  from 
the  saw-mill  to  the  Fort  Plain  being  close  to  the  river  front. 
From  Fort  Vancouver  to  the  Fourth  Plain  there  was  a  wagon 


! 


i  t 


?m 


I 


I 


122 

road  made,  and  the  creek  behind  Fort  Vancouver  was  bridged. 
From  *he  fort  to  the  Lower  Plain  farm  there  was  a  wagon 
road,  and  to  the  different  landings  on  the  river  connected  with 
the  fort  there  were  wagon  roads  made. 

Int.  484. — Docs  all  your  last  answer  refer  to  lands  occupied 
by  the  Company  previous  to  1846? 

Ans. — It  does.  ^ 

Int.  485. — Will  you  estimate  the  number  of  acres  ever  cul- 
tivated by  the  Company  around  Vancouver  ? 

Ans. — I  am  unable  to  do  so. 

Int.  486. — Will  you  estimate  the  number  of  acres  used  as 
pasture  land  by  the  Company  ? 

Ans. — I  am  unable  to  do  that.  '        '    / 

Int.  487. — Will  you  estimate  the  number  of  acres  or  square 
miles  which  your  answer  to  "  interrogatory  483"  embraces  ? 

Ans. — I  am  unable  to  do  that. 

Int.  488. — Does  your  answer  to  "  interrogatory  483"  refer 
to  what  lands  you  know  to  have  boon  used,  or  to  what  lands 
you  believe  to  have  been  used  by  the  Company? 

Ans. — My  reply  to  that  interrogatory  refers  to  the  lands  I 
knew  to  have  been  occupied  previous  to  1846. 

Int.  489. — Do  you  believe  there  were  any  lands  occupied 
that  you  did  not  know  of? 

Ans. — I  think  there  were  other  parts  of  the  land  within  the 
boundaries  occupied  by  the  Company  which  I  did  not  go  to. 

Int.  490. — What  makes  you  think  so? 

Ans. — My  acquaintance  with  the  lands  used  by  the  Com- 
pany arose  simply  from  riding  about  at  times.  I  had  no 
charge  whatever  of  the  farming  operations  of  the  Company, 
so  that  I  knew  but  little  as  to  what  was  going  on  upon  the 
lands,  in  comparison  with  the  officer  or  officers  who  had  that 
special  duty  in  charge. 

Int.  491. — Referring  to  your  answer  to  "  interrogatory 
489,"  what  parts  of  the  land  do  you  refer  to  ? 

Ans. — These  were  parts  of  the  land  I  never  visited,  or  it 
might  have  happened  that  at  the  time  of  my  visit  to  certain 
portions  of  this  land  there  might  have  been  nothing  doing, 
where  afterwards  they  might  have  been  improved  or  occupied 


128 


in  some  mannor.     My  rides  about  Vancouver  and  its  sur- 
roundings wore  at  very  irregular  intervals. 

Int.  402. — Do  you  believe  that  there  were  any  lands  on 
this  claim  which  were  occupied  for  agricultural  purposes  that 
you  did  not  know  of?     If  so,  state  where  they  were. 

Ans. — I  have  heard  of  operations  on  other  parts  of  the 
land,  but  at  this  distance  of  time  I  am  quite  unable  to  say 
what  they  were. 

Int.  493. — Please  answer  the  last  question  directly,  yes  or  no  ? 

Ana, — From  hearsay  information,  I  believe  there  were. 

Int.  494. — Where  were  they  ? 

Ans. — I  am  unable  to  say  now. 

Int.  495. — Who  told  you  that  any  other  lands  were  occu- 
pied ? 

An%. — Somebody  probably  connected  with  the  work  going 
on  at  the  time. 

/«<.  496. — For  what  purposes  were  they  occupied? 

Ans. — I  could  not  say  now. 

Int.  497. — When  were  they  occupied  ? 

Ans. — Sometime,  no  doubt,  previous  to  1846. 

Int.  498. — IIow  large  was  the  tract  of  land  you  have  spoken 
of  as  alluvial  land  ? 

An%. — My  estimate  of  it  is  ten  miles  in  length,  or  there- 
abouts, by  three  to  four  miles  in  breadth. 

Int.  499. — About  how  long  did  this  alluvial  land  remain 
overflowed  in  each  year? 

Ans. — It  varied  very  much,  one  year  with  another ;  but  I 
suppose  in  the  summer  freshets  of  the  Columbia  in  each  year, 
from  the  time  the  inundation  commenced  until  the  waters  re- 
ceded again  and  the  grass  sprung  up,  it  would  be  all  of  four 
months.  Then,  again,  in  the  winters,  when  the  weather  was 
very  rainy,  but  not  cold,  these  lands  would  be  more  or  less 
under  water  in  consequence  of  a  rise  in  the  Columbia ;  not 
that  the  Columbia  river  of  itself,  so  far  as  I  knew,  ever  got 
very  high  in  the  winter  months ;  but  the  Willamette  river, 
which  takes  its  rise  far  south,  is  subject  to  tremendous  win- 
ter freshets,  and  this,  with  some  other  tributaries  of  a  like 
class,  would  cause  a  rise  in  the  waters  of  the  Columbia  river, 


W 


] 


vi  I 


^ 


1 

\ 


I 


124 

which  a  stranger  would  not  be  prepared  for  at  that  season  of 
the  year. 

Int.  500. — What  were  the  four  months  of  the  year  that  these 
lands  were  overflowed? 

Ana. — May,  June,  July,  and  August,  by  which  period  the 
waters  would  have  risen  and  receded,  and  new  feed  for  ani- 
mals would  have  sprung  up  ^    ' 

Int.  r)01. — During  what  months  were  they  sometimes  over- 
flowed in  the  winter  'i 

An». — I  have  seen  freshets  there  in  various  months  during 
the  winter,  but  there  never  was  the  same  regularity  about 
them  as  in  the  summer  months,  which  latter  were  caused  by 
the  melting  of  the  snows  in  the  Rocky  Mountains,  while  *' 
winter  freshets  depend  on  the  rain-fall  for  the  season,  n"  at 
which  there  is  great  irregularity. 

Int.  502. — Was  not  a  great  part,  say  one-third  o''  Half,  of 
these  lands  covered  with  water — I  mean  by  lakes  or  sloughs — 
for  all  the  year  ? 

Ans. — There  was  certainly  more  or  less  water  upon  them 
all  the  year  round,  but  I  would  hardly  suppose  that  on  the 
average  the  amount  of  water  would  be  equal  to  a  third  of  the 
average  of  the  alluvial  lands. 

Int.  503. — In  your  answer  to  interrogatory  5  of  your  direct- 
exAmination  you  say,  "Below  that,  again,  to  the  Cathlepootl, 
a  distance,  probably,  of  ten  miles,  with  a  depth  of  two  miles, 
or  12,800  acres,  is  worth  $25  per  acre."  Is  this  an  estimate  of 
what  the  land  would  sell  for  ;  if  so,  to  what  time  does  it  refer? 

Ans. — I  cannot  say  what  the  land  would  have  sold  for.  My 
estimate  of  the  value  of  the  land  is  based  upon  my  thorough 
knowledge  of  it,  and  $25  per  acre  I  considered  its  money  value 
when  I  left  Fort  Vancouver  in  1858,  to  any  person  with  a  clear 
title,  to  deal  with  it  as  his  own. 

Int.  504. — Was  this  land  worth  more  than  it  would  sell  for? 

Ans. — I  think  it  not  uuTkely  that  it  was.  Had  it  been  my 
own  land,  I  have  no  foar  I'iit  that  I  would  have  got  that  money 
for  it. 

Int.  505. — Did  you  ever  know  any  sales  of  parts  of  this  land  ? 

Ans. — I  have  heard,  no  doubt,  of  the  sales  of  lands  some- 


125 


whoro  on  tlio  tract  claimctl  by  the  Company  ;  but  whether  any 
of  such  sales  took  phicc  on  the  alluvial  bottoms  I  am  unable 
to  Hay. 

Int.  t)0(]. — For  what  purposes  was  this  land  worth  ^25  per 
acre  ? 

Ant. — It  is  very  gooil  for  stock  and  for  garden  produce — 
such  years,  of  course,  as  it  is  not  inundated.  The  tract  is 
pretty  much  all  settled  by  what  they  call  donation  claimants 
in  that  country,  who,  I  know,  are  doing  well  there. 

Int.  507. — Did  you  have  anything  to  do  with  agricultural 
matters  at  Fort  Vancouver  ? 

Ans. — The  Company  never  planted  these  alluvial  lands,  so 
far  as  I  know  of.  I  did  carry  on  some  little  farming  while  I 
was  in  charge  of  the  place,  between  1854  and  1858. 

Int.  508. — Have  you  any  other  knowledge  which  would  en- 
able you  to  put  a  correct  value  on  these  lands  ? 

Ans. — I  don't  know  that  I  recollect  anything  more  now. 

Int.  500. — What  was  the  saleable  value  of  these  lands  pre- 
vious to  184G? 

Ana. — There  was  no  party  in  the  country  previous  to  1846 
to  whom  iiieso  lands  could  be  sold.  I,  therefore,  cannot  say 
what  their  sale^ible  value  at  that  time  was. 

Int.  510. — When  did  these  lands  fir!:t  have  a  saleable  value? 

An9. — I  am  unable  to  say  ;  I  never  inquired. 

Int.  511. — Have  they  a  saleable  value  now  ? 

Ang. — I  presume  they  have ;  I  really  know  very  little 
about  it. 

Int.  512. — How  far  back  of  the  river  did  the  timber  lands 
begin  ? 

An». — The  moment  you  get  on  the  ridge,  by  which  I  mean 
the  main  bank  of  the  river  back  of  the  alluvial  lands,  you  have 
timber  more  or  less  the  whole  way. 

Int.  513. — W^hat  is  the  value  of  this  alluvial  land  not  in- 
cluded in  your  answer  to  interrogatory  5  of  the  direct-exami- 
nation, as  quoted  in  cross-interrogatory  503  ? 

Ans. — I  should  vain?  the  rest  of  the  alluvial  lands  at  ^3 
per  acre. 


f 


ii 


t\ 


126 

Int.  514. — Why  do  you  value  it  two  miles  back  at  $25  per 
acre,  and  the  rest  at  only  $3  per  acre  ? 

Ans. — The  two  miles  vahn^d  at  $25  per  acre  has  a  frontage 
on  the  Columbia  river,  which,  of  itself,  makes  the  land  worth 
the  money.  The  two  miles  back,  valued  at  $3  the  acre,  has  a 
frontage  upon  nothing  in  particular,  which  detracts  from  its 
value  very  much,  in  my  opinion. 

Int.  515. — Is  the  tract  two  miles  back  any  less  valuable  for 
grazing  than  the  other,  when  they  both  happen  to  be  out  of 
water  ? 

Ans. — For  grazing  purposes,  I  presume  one  portion  is  as 
good  as  the  other  ;  but  when  it  comes  to  a  question  of  settling 
the  country  and  building  houses  and  farming  locations,  there  is 
all  the  difference  in  favor  of  the  land  fronting  on  the  river  as 
compared  with  the  land  behind. 

Int.  516. — Is  your  estimate  of  this  back  alluvial  land 
founded  on  any  better  knowledge  than  that  of  the  land  on  the 
front  ? 

A71S. — I  have  heard  of  no  sales  ;  I  have  no  doubt  it  is  worth 
$3  per  acre.     This  estimate  refers  to  1858.  [ 

Int.  517. — Docs  not  this  estimate  refer  only  to  those  allu- 
vial lands  that  are  not  continually  covered  by  water? 

Ans. — My  calculation  as  to  the  quantity  of  these  lands  is 
bafsed  oa  the  custom  of  the  Government  surveyors,  as  to  what 
they  considered  land  or  what  they  considered  water.  I  do 
not  include  the  large  Vancouver  Lako,  and  the  lako  called 
Charlofoux  Lake. 

Examination  Resumed,  April  1. 

Int.  518. — In  your  answer  to  interrogatoi'y  5  of  your  direct- 
examii'rtion  you  say,  "With  respect  to  the  value  of  the  land 
at  Vancouver.  I  am  clearly  of  the  opinion  that  had  the  Com- 
pany had  entire  control,  to  deal  with  it  as  their  own,  with- 
out any  question  as  to  their  title,  from  the  year  1846  to  1858, 
Avhen  I  left  there,  taking  the  fort  as  a  central  point,  the  land 
above  and  below  it,  to  *^he  extent  of  three  square  miles,  or  1,920 
acres,  with  frontage  on  the  Columbia  river,  could  have  been 


Ift 


% 


127 


direct- 

ic  laud 

Com- 

with- 

1858, 

e  laud 

1,920 

I  been 


easily  disponed  of  for  $250  per  acre,"  plcaso  Htatc!  on  what 
knowledge  you  made  that  statement, 

Ans. — I  am  supposing  the  land  in  <iuestion,  after  the  date 
of  the  treaty,  had  been  turned  into  a  town  Kite*  and  nieasured 
out  in  lots,  and  sold  as  opportunity  oft'crcd,  wht-ii,  1  J.-jlicve, 
that  the  money  would  have  been  ubtained  for  it.  My  knowledge 
of  this  fact,  of  course,  was  obtained  from  othcrH,  1  was  not 
there  myself.  The  late  Mr.  Ogden  was  my  pritK^ipul  inform- 
ant, who  was  good  authority  on  the  subject. 

Int.  519. — Have  you  any  personal  knowledf^t'  of  the  value 
of  this  land?  ^ 

Ans. — I  know  the  lands  very  well.  My  owti  idea  of  them 
while  I  was  there  Avas  that  they  were  very  cheap  at  $250  the 
acre.  It  is  impossible  for  any  one  to  say  wliat  they  eoiild  be 
sold  for,  inasmuch  as  640  acres  in  (quantity  wa»  covered  by 
the  military  reservation  there,  which  could  not  be  Hohl,  and 
on  which  the  military  authorities  set  a  very  high  value.  The 
inability  to  sell  this  portion  of  the  land  would  interfere  much 
with  the  sale  of  the  remainder. 

Int.  520. — What  reason  was  there  for  you  valuing  this  land 
at  $250  per  acre? 

Ans. — There  was  a  town  site  on  the  land  in  which  lots  were 
sold  at  very  high  figures,  and  there  were  other  reaMons  which 
have  escaped  my  memory. 

Int.  521. — Is  the  town  site  above  or  below  the  military  res- 
ervation ? 

Ans. — The  town  site  I  refer  to  was  below  the  military  res- 
ervation. 

Int.  522. — Who  first  took  possession  of  thiH  town  site  ? 
Ans. — I  cannot  say.     I  was  absent  from  Vancouver  when 
that  e  v-nt  took  place.  f 

Inf.  523. — IIow  largo  Avas  this  town  site  as  hiid  out? 
Ans. — I  uo  not  know.     There  has  been  (juite  a  towti  there 
for  yoars. 

Int.  524. — Exphiin  what  you  mean  by  "quite  a  town  for 
years." 

Ans. — Previous  to  leaving  Fort  Vancouver  in  18,58, 1  remem- 
ber s».'eing  a  number  of  streets  there  graded  and  laid  out,  and  a 


).  \ 


r; 


M  I 


I 


It 


I 

1 


t  li 


128 

number  of  houses  up  close  to  one  another.  But  as  to  the 
number  of  houses  and  the  population,  I  am  unable  to  state 
what  they  were.  Of  course,  now  the  place  is  very  much  in- 
creased, and  the  population  also.  The  town,  so  far  as  I  re- 
member, took  a  start  in  the  year  1854,  and  has  gone  on  increas- 
ing until  now.  It  is  a  matter  of  twelve  or  thirteen  years  that 
I  know  the  place  to  have  been  a  town. 

Int.  525.— Did  it  have  300  inhabitants  in  '^858? 

Aiu. — I  am  really  unable  to  say  what  the  population  of  it 
was. 

Int.  526.— Did  it  have  300  in  1860  ? 

Ans. — I  am  unable  to  say  what  the  population  was  in  1860. 

Int.  527. — Did  it  have  300  when  you  last  saw  it  ? 

Ans. — I  am  unable  to  say  what  population  it  had  when  I 
last  saw  it. 

Int.  528. — What  was  the  average  value  of  land  in  this  town 
in  1854  ? 

Ans. — I  don't  know. 

Int.  520. — What  was  its  value  in  1858  ? 

Ans. — I  don't  think  that  I  know. 

Int.  530. — What  was  it  when  you  last  saw  it  ? 

Ans. — I  am  unable  to  say. 

Int.  531. — What  particular  knowledge  have  you  of  the 
vi^lue  of  the  land  in  this  loun  at  any  time? 

Ans. — I  knew  what  lots  were  selling  for  when  I  was  there ; 
the  particulars,  however,  have  escaped  my  memory. 

Int.  532. — Do  you  remember  any  particulars  with  regard  to 
this  land  ? 

Ans. — It  has  all  pretty  much  escaped  my  memory. 

Int.  533. — Do  you  remember  any  particulars  of  the  value 
of  the  land  aboVc  the  military  reservation  'i 

Ans. — I  have  only  my  own  personal  knowledge  of  the  land 
and  of  its  value ;  it  is  good  and  fertile  land ;  it  will  produce 
anything  in  the  shape  of  crops  that  will  grow  in  that  country. 

Int.  534. — Do  you  know  at  what  prices  any  of  this  land  has 
been  bought  or  sold  V 

Ans. — I  don't  remember  of  any  of  it  being  sold. 


A. 


,'alue 


129 

Int.  535. — What  pai-t  of  these  three  square  miles  had  ever 
been  cultivated  by  the  Company  ? 

Ans. — Wherever  you  could  get  a  plough  into  the  land  on 
the  plain,  it  had  been  cultivated.  There  was  very  little  of 
that  claim  that  had  not  been  ploughed  up  at  some  time  or 
other. 

Int.  536. — Had  a  quarter  part  of  this  land  ever  been  culti- 
vated ? 

Ans. — I  should  say  about  a  half  of  it  ? 

Int.  537. — Why  could  not  a  plough  be  gotten  into  the  re- 
maining part  of  it  ? 

Ans. — A  certain  portion  below  the  fort  was  timbered  land, 
and  a  certain  portion  of  the  land  is  subject  to  inundation  iu 
the  summer  months. 

Int.  538. — Why  do  you  estimate  that  the  portion  which 
was  timbered  was  worth  $250  per  acre  ? 

Ans. — The  quantity  of  the  land  below  the  Fort  included  in 
this  valuation  did  not  amount  to  much,  but  its  value  was 
much  enhanced  by  the  manner  in  which  it  lay  on  the  river,  as 
it  never  overflowed  in  the  highest  water,  and  was  therefore 
well  suited  for  town  property  in  the  erection  of  buildings. 

Int.  539. — How  much  did  this  timbered  land  "  amount  to  ?" 

Ans. — From  a  quarter  to  half  a  mile  front,  running  back 
probably  about  half  a  mile. 

Int.  540. — Why  do  you  estimate  the  lands  that  were  subject 
to  overflow  in  the  summer,  and  therefore  not  suited  for  town 
lots,  at  $250  per  acre  ? 

Ans. — The  Fort  Plain  was  more  or  less  subject  to  overflow, 
but  not  to  a  very  serious  extent.  The  plain  itself  was  on  a 
high  level,  and  the  river  had  to  be  very  high  before  there 
was  much  of  an  overflow.  Befory  a  person  can  judge  with 
respect  to  the  land  which  may  or  may  not  be  suitable  for  town 
lots,  my  own  experience  is  that  it  requires  the  land  to  be 
laid  out  by  a  surveyor.  I  know  the  land  well,  and  if  the 
money  could  not  have  been  obtained  for  the  lots  subject  to 
overflow,  it  would  simply  havcenhanced.thc  price  of  fsuch  lots 
as  were  free  from  such  a  drawback.  But  there  are  few  townp 
in  that  western  country  with  which  I  am  acquainted  that  are 
9B 


/ 


■ 

\\ 

w 

1 

■ 

J 

> 

130 


not  subject  to  overflow  more  or  less,  but  more  particularly  the 
city  of  Portland,  at  which  certain  portions  of  the  town  are 
under  water  for  longer  or  shorter  periods  of  time  annually. 
But  nobody  supposes  on  that  account  that  town  property  in 
Portland  is  at  all  depreciated  in  value  in  consequence  of  such 
flooding. 

Int.  541. — Are,  then,  lots  that  are  annually  under  the  water 
as  valuable  as  those  which  are  not  ? 

Ana. — It  depends  very  much  upon  where  the  lots  are.  •  This 
annual  flooding  is  of  short  duration^ 

Int.  542. — How  much  of  this  tract  is  subject  to  overflow? 

Ans. — I  could  not  say  from  memory. 

Int.  543. — Does  it  f  .tend  at  least  two  miles  along  the  river  ? 

Ants. — There  ma;*  be  that  length  along  the  plain,  but  the 
T'iiHh  of  it  is  limited. 

/  '■  14. — What  was  the  average  width  of  this  tract  two 
milfcr       length? 

Ann. — I  cannot  say. 

Int.  545. — Have  you  not  in  substance  stated  that  one-half 
of  these  three  square  miles  were  either  timbered  or  subject  to 
overflow  ? 

Ans. — I  believe  I  did  say  so. 

Int.  546. — Had  the  military  reserve  ever  been  laid  out  in 
town  lo^s  by  a  surveyor  ? 

An9. — I  was  not  at  Fort  Vancouver  at  the  time,  but  I  have 
been  told  that  the  county  commissioners  of  Clarke  county  dis- 
posed of  a  number  of  town  lots  at  Fort  Vancouver,  inside  of 
the  reservation,  as  I  have  understood ;  so  that  I  should  say, 
from  that,  that  the  commissioners  had  laid  out  a  town  there. 

Int.  547. — Did  you  ever  see  a  plan  of  this  reservation,  as 
laid  out  in  town  lots  ? 

Ans. — Not  to  my  knowledge. 

Int.  548. — Did  you  ever  see  a  plan  of  the  land  above  the 
military  reservation,  as  laid  out  in  town  lots'? 

Ans. — Not  that  I  remember  of. 

Int.  549. — Was  the  military  reservation  or  the  land  above 
it  laid  out  in  town  iSts  so  that  you  could  see  them  upon  the 
land  ? 


181 


Ana.—l^ot  that  I  know  of. 

Int.  550. — Does  your  estimate  of  $250  per  acre  refer  to  the 
value  of  these  lands  for  agricultural  purposes,  or  to  their  value 
as  town  lots  ? 

Ana. — I  am  supposing  the  land  turned  into  town  property, 
and  the  lots  selling  to  bring  that  price,  on  the  average,  per 
acre. 

Int.  551. — In  part  answer  to  your  interrogatory  540,  you 
have,  in  substance,  stated  that,  from  your  experience,  you 
cannot  judge  of  the  value  of  land  for  town  purposes  until  you 
have  seen  it  laid  out  by  a  surveyor ;  will  you  now  please  state, 
referring  to  your  answers  to  the  interrogatories  since  547, 
how  you  are  able  to  estimate  the  value  of  these  lands  for  town 
purposes  ? 

Am. — In  my  reply  to  interrogatory  540,  when  referring 
to  a  person  who  required  the  assistance  of  the  surveyor  to  as- 
certain the  land  that  might  be  suitable  or  might  not  be  suit- 
able for  town  lots,  I  did  not  refer  to  myself,  but  to  a  person 
or  party  who  had  nO  knowledge  or  acquaintance  with  the  lands 
at  Fort  Vancouver. 

Int.  552. — What  particular  knowledge  have  you  that  enables 
you  to  value  town  lots  before  you  have  ever  seen  them  laid 
out? 

Ana. — I  knew  the  land  well,  and  I  saw  how  other  towns 
were  built  up,  and  what  lots  sold  for. 

Int.  553. — When  did  you  first  make  this  estimate  of  $250 
per  acre? 

Ana. — Some  time  ago,  no  doubt. 

Int.  554. — When  did  you  cease  to  remember  what  town  lots 
were  selling  for  ? 

Ana. — I  can  hardly  say. 

Int.  555. — Do  you  distinctly  remember  that  you  remembered 
what  town  lots  were  selling  for,  at  any  time  when  you  gave 
the  valuation  of  $250  per  acre  to  these  lands  ? 

Ana. — I  have  no  recollection  about  it. 

Int.  556. — To  what  particular  year  does  your  valuation  refer  ? 

Ana. — It  refers  to  a  period  between  1846  and  1858.  I  have 
reference  to  no  particular  year. 


I? 


n 


182 

Int.  657.— Was  it  worth  that  in  1846  ? 

-4n«.— It  may  have  been  worth  it ;  but  as  there  was  nobody 
there,  to  my  knowledge,  to  buy  the  land,  I  am  unable  to  say. 

Int.  558. — Is  your  ability  to  say  what  this  land  was  worth 
dependent  on  the  fact  whether  there  was  any  one  there  to  buy 
it  or  not? 

Ans. — It  is  the  only  safe  way  to  arrive  at  the  saleable 
value. 

Int.  559. — How  are  you  able  to  tell  the  value  of  this  land 
between  the  years  1847  and  1853,  inclusive,  wuv.^  ^ou  were 
not  at  Vancouver  ? 

An%. — I  had  no  personal  knowledge  of  it ;  I  had  it  on  in- ' 
formation  from  others. 

Int.  560. — Were  there  persons  there  during  that  time  who 
would  have  bought  this  land  for  that  price  1 

Ans. — A  great  deal  of  wealth  had  flowed  into  the  country, 
and  I  have  understood  there  would  have  been  no  trouble  in 
disposing  of  the  land  for  the  money  in  the  manner  stated. 

Int.  561. — When  was  this  land  most  valuable  ? 

Ans. — As  far  as  my  information  went,  this  land  waF  proba- 
bly most  valuable  from  the  year  1849  on  until  1853  ;  I  do  not 
think  it  was  so  valuable  from  1853  on  to  1858. 

Int.  562. — What  was  its  value  when  you  last  saw  it  ? 

Ans. — I  don't  think  I  know. 

Int.  563. — At  what  latest  time  are  you  able  to  estimate  its 
value  ? 

Ans. — I  could  not  estimate  its  value  otherwise  than  in  the 
manner  I  have  do"e  in  my  direct-examination. 

Int.  564. — What  part  of  this  land  was  cultivated  in  the 
year  1846  ? 

Ans. — About  a  couple  of  hundred  acres. 

Int.  565. — Had  not  the  Company  ceased  to  cultivate  this 
land  because  it  was  unprofitable  to  do  so  ? 

An%. — Not  that  I  am  aware  of.  The  back  portion  of  the 
plain,  the  elevated  portion,  was  used  almost  entirely  for  the 
pasturage  of  sheep,  for  which  it  was  very  suitable.  The 
plain  itself  had  been  ploughed  and  cultivated  in  all  directions, 
and  the  Company  had  sown  the  lands  in  all  directions  with 


I   \ 

V 


188 


timothy  and  clover  seeds,  which  had  come  up  well.  The  land 
which  was  under  cultivation,  200  acres,  was  under  wheat  or 
other  grain.  But  there  was  very  little  of  this  timothy  or 
clover  under  fence,  it  being  used  for  pasturing  horses  and  cat- 
tle, so  that  the  plain  itself,  at  the  period  mentioned,  must  have 
been,  in  my  opinion,  most  productive. 

Int.  566. — In  your  answer  to  interrogatory  5,  of  your  di- 
rect-examination, you  say  "  I  consider  the  land  on  the  Lower 
Plain,  having  frontage  on  the  river  for  a  distance  of  five  miles, 
or  8,200  acres,  as  worth  $100  per  acre."  State  on  what  knowl- 
edge you  made  that  estimate. 

Ans. — It  is  an  estimate  made  from  my  own  knowledge  of 
the  land.  I  consider  that  this  land  on  the  Lower  Plain,  for 
agricultural  purposes,  cannot  be  surpassed.  Like  the  land  in 
the  neighborhood  of  Fort  Vancouver,  it  had  been  thoroughly 
seeded  with  timothy  and  clover,  yielding  annual  ha  -vests  of 
those  grasses  of  great  value  to  the  parties  who  were  in  posses- 
sion of  the  lands  previous  and  up  to  1858.  With  some  of 
those  people  I  had  much  conversation  as  to  the  annual  yield 
of  the  lands  occupied  by  them,  which  assisted  me  in  arriving 
at  the  estimate  of  their  value  given  by  me. 

Examination  Resumedf  April  2. 


f 

i' 


its 
the 
the 

this 

the 

the 

The 

ions, 

with 


Int.  567. — When  were  these  lands  sown  ? 

Ana. — They  must  have  been  sown  by  the  Company  while 
they  were  in  possession  of  them. 

Int.  568. — Do  you  know  that  they  were  sown  previous  to 
1846? 

Ans. — I  believe  they  were. 

Int.  569. — Why  did  the  Company  sow  these  lands  ? 

Ans. — I  presume  they  sowed  them  with  a  view  to  improving 
the  pasturage. 

J>'f.  570. — Did  they  ever  cultivate  them  for  the  crops? 

Ans. — There  is  no  doubt  they  cultivated  all  over.  I  sup- 
pose they  had  about  three  hundred  acres  under  fence,  sown 
with  wheat  and  other  grains,  in  1846.  There  were  two  dairy 
establishments  there,  where  a  great  many  cows  were  milked, 


I 


F* 


/V- 

I       \ 


•^i 


"m 


.^.- 


184 


using  corrals  and  parks  for  that  purpose,  and  for  keeping  the 
cattle  together. 

Int.  571. — How  much  of  this  tract,  fronting  on  the  river, 
was  overflowed  yearly  ? 

Ans. — In  the  summer  months,  in  some  years,  there  was  a 
good  deal  of  it  inundated ;  in  other  years  again,  not  so  much. 

Int.  572. — Was  not  half  of  it  inundated  some  years  ? 

Ans. — There  may  have  been  in  some  years ;  I  never  saW  so 
much  as  that.  « 

Int.  573. — Was  timothy  and  clover  sown  in  the  land  that 
was  annually  inundated  ? 

An%. — I  presume  it  had  been  sown  all  over. 

Int.  574. — Do  you  know  that  it  had  been  ? 

Ana. — I  do  not  know ;  I  presume  it  had. 

Int.  5>lit. — Do  you  know  that  it  was  growing  there  ? 

Ans. — I  believe  it  was  growing  all  over  the  bottom,  on  the 
land  that  was  and  was  not  inundated. 

Int.  576. — At  what  season  of  the  year  do  they  cut  hay  at 
Vancouver  ? 

Am. — When  I  was  there  I  cut  it  in  June,  some  years,  and 
in  July  and  August,  in  other  years. 

Int.  511. — What  time  do  they  sow  grass  seed  there  ? 

Ans. — I  never  sowed  any ;  the  grasses  I  had,  clover  and 
timothy,  grew  every  year  from  seeding,  before  my  time. 

Int.  578, — Did  you  ever  cut  any  grass  on  the  part  of  this 
tract  that  was  annually  inundated  ? 

An8. — I  never  cut  any  grass  on  the  Lower  Plain. 

Int.  579. — Did  you  ever  see  any  timothy  or  clover  growing 
on  the  part  which  was  annually  inundated  ? 

Ans. — I  have  done  so  when  it  was  not  inundated. 

Int.  580. — When  and  where  did  you  see  this  clover  grow- 
ing? 

Ans. — I  may  have  seen  it  all  over  the  plain,  for  what  I 
remember  now,  when  it  was  not  under  water. 

Int.  581. — What  part  of  this  tract  was  woodland  ? 

Ans. — There  was  a  certain  quantity  of  timber  below  the 
fort  to  the  commencement  or  upper  end  of  the  plain,  pro- 
bably half  a  mile  or  so.     The  Lower  Plain  then  opened  and 


185 

stretched  pretty  nearly  all  the  distance  down  the  river,  with 
occasional  belts  of  timber,  and  with  a  little  timber  on  the 
river  bank.  The  back  part  of  the  plain  had  more  or  less  tim- 
ber on  it ;  not  more,  however,  than  would  be  suflBcient  for 
the  use  of  the  different  farms,  in  the  way  of  fencing,  fire- 
wood, &c. 

Int.  582. — Is  not  at  least  one-fourth  part  of  this  tract  cov- 
ered with  timber  ? 

An^s. — It  may  be,  but  my  estimate  would  not  be  so  great 
as  that.     I  would  say  from  an  eighth  to  a  fourth. 

Int.  583. — Is  not  a  great  portion  of  the  tract  covered  with 
lakes  ? 

Ans. — There  are  lakes  a  long  way  down  ;  but  according  to 
my  estimate,  the  land  would  be  found  there  independent  of 
the  lakes. 

Int.  584. — Do  you  mean  by  your  last  answer  to  say  that 
the  land  you  have  estimated  at  ^100  per  acre  did  not  run 
down  to,  nor  back  of  the  lakes  ? 

Ans. — It  came  round  the  Vancouver  Lake,  on  the  southern 
and  western  shores,  for  half  or  two-thirds  of  its  length. 

Int.  585. — Why  do  you  value  the  part  that  was  annually 
inundated  at  $100  per  acre? 

Ans. — To  the  parties  who  were  in  possession  of  those  lands 
the  whole  were  equally  valuable.  Though  subject  to  inunda- 
tion, there  were  some  years  that  it  did  not  amount  to  much,  and 
hurt  nothing,  so  that  in  that  way  good  crops  would  occasion- 
ally be  obtained,  making  up  the  loss  caused  in  other  years. 
These  people  also  make  no  distinction  between  the  value  of 
their  lands  subject  to  inundation,  and  those  which  are  not, 
looking  upon  them  all  as  being  equally  useful.  From  my 
knowledge  of  the  lands,  and  the  uses  they  can  be  pu+.  to,  in 
this  tract,  I  should  make  no  distinction  as  to  value  botween 
those  portions  subject  to  overflow  and  those  that  are  not. 
My  estimate  of  the  value  of  the  lands  is  based  on  the  annual 
returns  made  to  the  parties  in  possession  of  them,  from  which 
information  I  came  to  the  conclusion  that  the  land  was  worth 
that  money  to  a  person  with  a  clear  title  to  deal  with  it  as  he 
pleased. 


I 


; 


#,,  -^».«,^. 


186 


Int.  586. — Did  you  ever  buy  or  sell  any  of  these  lands  ? 

An%. — No  ;  I  think  not. 

Int.  587. — Do  you  know  the  price  at  which  any  of  thein 
were  ever  sold  ? 

Ana. — I  have  no  such  knowledge. 

Int.  588. — Do  you  know  what  were  the  returns  of  the  inun- 
dated lands  for  any  year  ? 

An%. — I  can  not  say. 

Int.  589. — Were  not  the  waters  of  the  Columbia  at  the  time 
of  the  annual  flood  very  cold  ? 

Ans. — Yes  ;  they  were,  I  believe. 

Int.  590. — Is  it  not  characteristic  of  the  floods  of  the  Co- 
lumbia river  that  they  leave  no  deposit  behind  ;  or,  if  any, 
only  sand  ? 

Ans. — "Where  I  have  noticed,  I  have  no  recollection  of  any 
deposit  being  left,  not  even  sand. 

Int.  591. — For  what  reason  did  you  value  the  woodland  on 


this  tract  at 


per  acre 


Ans. — The  woodland  is  of  a  fair  quality,  and  I  look  upon 
it  as  equally  valuable  with  the  open  land,  for  the  reason  that 
the  timber  is  required  in  a  variety  of  ways  by  parties  having 
claims  on  the  plains,  as  without  this  woodland  they  would  be 
under  the  necessity  of  buying  fire-wood,  fencing,  &c.,  which, 
as  I  now  estimate  it,  would  be  found  on  the  respective  claims 
of  each  settler. 

Int.  592. — Did  you  ever  know  any  sales  of  this  woodland  ? 

An». — I  have  heard  of  sales  of  woodland  ;  but  I  have  for- 
gotten really  the  details. 

Int.  593. — Why  do  you  value  the  rest  of  this  tract  at  $100 
per  acre? 

Ans. — From  information  T  received  from  parties  on  the 
land,  I  considered  that  its  value. 

Int.  594. — Do  you  know  of  the  prices  for  which  any  of  it 
was  sold  ? 

Ans. — I  do  not  now  remember. 

Int.  595. — At  what  time  do  you  estimate  the  whole  tract, 
embraced  in  your  answer  as  quoted  in  cross-interrogatory 
566,  to  have  been  worth  $100  per  acre  ? 


187 

Ans. — About  the  time  I  left  Fort  Vancouver,  in  1858. 

Int.  596. — Were  they  worth  more  at  that  time  than  now,  or 
at  any  time  since  or  before  ? 

Ans. — I  know  nothing  of  their  value  since,  and  am  not 
aware  that  the  land  was  worth  more  than  $100  per  acre  pre- 
vious to  1858. 

Int.  697. — Are  you  aware  that  it  was  worth  $25  per  acre 
at  any  time  previous  to  1858  ? 

Ana. — I  have  no  recollection  of  what  it  was  worth  previous 
to  1858. 

Int.  598. — Are  you  aware  that  it  was  worth  more  than  $25 
in  1858? 

Ane. — According  to  my  estimate,  it  was  worth  $100  in  1858. 

Int.  599. — Please  answer  my  last  question  directly,  yes  or  no. 

Ans. — Yes,  I  am  ..ware  of  it. 

Int.  600. — What  particular  recollection  have  you  of  the 
value  of  this  land  in  1858  more  than  at  any  previous  time?. 

An8. — My  recollection  of  it  is  this :  that  if  anybody  had 
then  offered  me  that  tract  of  land  with  a  clear  title,  I  would 
have  given  $30  an  acre  for  it  readily. 

Mt.  601. — Did  you  ever  try  to  buy  any  of  this  land? 

An8. — Not  that  I  remember  of. 

Int.  602. — Why  would  you  have  given  $30  an  acre  for  these 
lands  ? 

Ans. — Because  I  thought  I  was  getting  them  cheap.         i ; 

Int.  60S. — How  much  more  would  you  have  given  ? 

Ans. — That  I  can't  say. 

Int.  604. — Would  you  have  given  $35  an  acre? 

Ans. — That  I  don't  know. 

Int.  605. — Why  don't  you  know  whether  you  would  have 
given  $35  an  acre  for  land  you  estimate  at  the  time  was  worth 
$100  per  acre? 

Ans. — For  the  simple  reason  that,  although  I  might  have 
been  prepared  to  pay  $30  an  acre  for  land,  it  does  not  neces- 
sarily follow  that  I  would  be  disposed  to  pay  any  more  for  the 
land,  even  allowing  it  was  worth 'more  than  $100  per  acr^'. 

Int.  606. — Can't  you  answer  the  last  question  more  aufi- 
nitely  ? 


188 

Anj. — Not  as  I  understand  it. 

Int.  607. — Why  do  you  estimate  the  lands  to  have  been 
worth  $100  per  acre,  when  you  don't  know  whether  you  would 
have  given  $35  an  acre  for  them  ? 

An8. — The  basis  on  which  I  estimated  the  value  I  have  al- 
ready given.  What  I  might  be  disposed  to  give  for  the  lands 
has  nothing  to  do  with  that  estimate. 

Int.  608. — Had  what  you  were  disposed  to  give  for  the  land, 
anything  to  do  with  what  they  were  worth  ? 

Ans. — It  had,  no  doubt. 

Int.  609. — Had  what  the  lands  were  worth  anything  to  do 
with  your  estimate  ? 

Ans. — My  estimate  as  to  what  the  lands  were  worth  was 
their  value  to  the  Company — not  to  outside  people — based  on 
the  information  I  had  of  my  own  and  from  other  parties. 

/»/,  ♦JIO. — Why  was  this  land  worth  three  times  as  much  to 
tlie  Company  as  you  would  have  been  willing  to  give  for  it? 

Ans. — The  Company  had  many  advartages  over  private  in- 
dividuals. They  had  plenty  of  means  and  resources,  and 
could  turn  their  lands  round,  and  work  them  to  much  more 
advantage  than  private  individuals  could  do. 

Int.  611. — How  much  additional  value  would  this  give  tc 
the  lan^ds  in  the  Company's  possession  ? 

Ans. — It  gave  almost  everything  to  them.  There  are  trac 
of  land  of  indifferent  quality,  which,  in  the  Company's  hands, 
with  the  use  of  sheep  and  other  manures,  could  be  rendered 
fertile  and  productive.  With  private  individuals,  who  had  not 
the  means  to  carry  on  this  system  of  farming,  land  that  was 
originally  indifferent  would  keep  getting  poorer. 

Int.  612. — Does  the  last  answer  refer  to  the  tract  of  land 
you  now  estimate  to  have  been  worth  $100  to  the  Company^ 
for  the  Company's  purpo?es  ?  ' 

Ans. — That  tract  of  land,  in  many  places,  had  been  ren- 
dered fertile  and  productive  by  the  Company.  A  year  or  two 
after  the  treaty  of  1846  this  land  was  occupied  by  squatters, 
who  from  that  time  on  reaped  the  benefit  of  the  Company's 
labors  and  outlay. 

Int.  613. — Have  your  various  estimates  of  the  value  of  this 


h 
ii 

a 
d 

e 


1 


189 

land  at  $100  per  acre  all  had  reference  to  what  it  wub  worth 
in  1858  to  the  Company,  for  the  Company's  uses  ? 

Ans. — The  Company,  in  '•858,  was  not  in  the  occupation  of 
any  of  this  land,  it  being  then  in  possession  of  squatters,  or 
donation  claimants ;  but  my  estimate  of  $100  per  acre  was 
what  I  considered  it  was  worth  to  the  Company  at  that  date, 
even  though  the  squatters  had  possession  of  it. 

Int.  614. — Why  do  you  recollect  what  it  was  worth  to  the 
Company  in  1858,  when  the  Company  had  not  been  in  possess- 
ion of  it  for  ten  years,  better  than  at  any  previous  time  "i 

Ana. — That  is  my  recollection  of  it. 

Int.  615. — What  would  this  land  have  been  worth  to  a  pri- 
vate individual  with  a  clear  title,  to  deal  with  it  as  he  pleased? 

Ana. — That  I  hardly  know. 

Int.  616. — Would  it  have  been  worth  $20  per  acre  ? 

Ana. — I  do  not  know  what  it  would  have  been  worth ;  it  de- 
pended entirely  on  what  people  thought  of  it. 

Int.  617.— What  do  you  think  of  it  ? 

Ans. — I  think  a  good  deal  of  it. 

Int.  618. — Do  you  think  this  land  was  worth  $20  an  acre 
to  a  person  with  a  clear  title,  to  do  with  it  as  he  pleased  ? 

Ana. — I  think  so. 

Int.  619. — Do  you  think  it  was  worth  $30  an  acre  ? 

Ana. — I  do. 

Int.  620. — Do  you  think  it  was  worth  $35  an  acre  ' 

Ana. — I  think  it  was.     I  think  it  was  worth  $40  an  acre. 

Int.  621. — Do  you  think  it  was  worth  $45  an  acre  ? 

Ana. — Yes. 

Int.  622. — Do  you  think  it  was  worth  any  more? 

Ana. — Yes,  I  think  it  was  worth  more  than  that,  even. 

Int.  623. — How  much  more  ? 

Ans. — I  hardly  know  how  much  more ;  something  between 
that  and  a  hundred  dollars. 

Int.  624. — Was  it  worth  more  than  $65  ? 

Ana. — I  don't  know  that  to  a  private  individual  it  was  worth 
more  than  that. 

Int.  625. — Why  were  these  lands  worth  $65  an  acre  to  a 


!■  > 


140 

private  in  dividual,  when  you  don't  know  that  you  would  have 
given  $35  for  them  ? 

Ans. — What  I  would  have  done  was  no  rule  in  the  matter. 
Thp  parties  whom  I  knew  on  the  land,  and  were  making  money 
out  of  it,  were  those  who  were  best  acquainted  with  its  value, 
and  prepared  to  pay  the  highest  price  for  it.  - 

Examination  Resumed^  April  3.  !  "> 

Int.  626. — Did  you  ever  know  any  of  this  land  to  be  sold 
as  high  as  $20  per  acre  ? 

Ans. — There  were  sales  of  some  of  the  land,  but  I  cannot 
tell  what  the  lands  sold  for. 

Int.  627. — Why  did  you  estimate  these  lands  to  be  worth 
$100  per  acre  to  a  private  citizen,  in  your  answ  ^r  to  interrog- 
atory 585,  when  you  now  say  that  they  were  worth  only 
$100  to  the  Company,  and  about  $65  to  a  private  individual, 
while  you  do  not  know  that  you  would  give  $35  for  them  ? 

Ans. — In  my  reply  to  interrogt.tory  585,  I  referred  to 
a  party  who  had  capital  like  the  Company,  to  tuvn  these  lands 
to  advantage,  and  to  whom  they  would  be  of  the  value  of 
$100  per  acre.  On  the  other  hand,  in  referring  to  a  private 
individual,  where  the  land  niight  be  worth  $65  an  acre,  I  meant 
a  party  who  had  not  the  means  to  turn  the  land  to  advantage, 
and  to  whon  of  course,  it  would  be  of  less  value.  With 
respect  to  wht  1 1  was  disposed  to  offer  for  the  land  myself,  I 
don't  see  that  that  affects  the  value  at  all. 

Int.  628. — What  capital  was  needed  to  turn  these  lands  to 
advantage  ? 

Ans. — I  could  not  say. 

Int.  629. — How  must  capital  be  expended  before  this  land 
could  be  turned  to  advantage  ? 

Ans. — That  I  could  not  say. 

Int.  630. — What  was  this  land  worth  to  the  Company  in 
1846? 

Ans. — It  was  worth  a  great  deal  of  money  to  the  Company 
in  1846,  but  I  cannot  say  how  much. 

Int.  631. — What  better  knowledge  have  you  of  its  value  to 


.    y 


.,^^«*.,,OT*<■^^,. 


,  ■") 


141 


and 


the  Company  in  1858,  when  the  Company  ha:l  not  hcon  in 
possession  of  it  for  ten  years,  than  in  1846,  when  the  Com- 
pany was  still  in  possession  of  it  ? 

Ans. — I  knew  that  the  Company  were  in  podseBHJoii  of  the 
Innds  in  1846,  and  I  made  an  estimate  of  their  vitlije  in  1868, 
which  I  did  not  do  in  1846. 

Int.  632. — Are  you  not  as  able  to  make  an  eHtimato  of  the 
value  of  the  lands  to  the  Company  in  1846  as  of  th©  huildings? 
Ans. — I  am  unable  to  give  an  estimate  of  the  value  of  the 
lands  used  by  the  Company  in  1846,  at  Fort  Varufonvcr  and 
its  neighborhood,  in  detached  pieces.  I  can  only  deal  with 
such  lands  as  a  whole.  The  entire  quantity  of  tho  land  thus 
used,  I  estimate  to  have  been  about  160,000  acrcH,  and  of  the 
average  value  of  from  $2  50  to  $3  per  acre. 

Int.  633. — In  part  answer  to  interrogatory  5,  o^'  tho  di- 
direct-examination,  you  say  "going  above  the  Fort  Plain,  and 
so  on  to  the  commencement  of  the  claim,  two  miloK  above  tho 
saw-mill  on  the  Columbia  river,  say  a  distance  of  mx  or  Bcvon 
miles,  and  back  three  miles,  or  about  13,500  acres,  Hhould  be 
worth  from  $10  to  $15  per  acre."  What  was  thiK  land  worth 
in  1858  ? 

Ans. — That  was  my  estimate  of  its  value  in  1858.        ^ 
Int.  634. — To  whom  was  it  worth  this  ? 
Ans. — My  particular  estimate  of  value  referred  to  tho  Com- 
pany.    I  have  no  recollection  of  hearing  of  any  Htihrn  of  the 
land. 

Inf.  635. — Why  was  it  worth  this  amount  to  tho  Company 
in  1858  ? 

Ans. — The  Company,  of  course,  had  their  enoloKTiro8  on  the 
Mill  Plain  farm.  They  had  also  the  grint-mill  at  work.  The 
saw-mill  was  there  also,  but  not  ruTiiiing  in  1H5H.  I  looked 
upon  this  amount,  of  from  $10  to  $15  an  acre,  an  tlu(  value  of 
the  land. 

Int.  636. — Was  not  at  least  three-fourth''  >f  this  land  tim- 
ber-land ? 

Ans. — There  was  a  great  deal  of  timbc-  [  hardly  know  to 
what»exteiit ;  but  I  do  not  cons^idcr  that  a  drawback  to  tho 
land  there,  as  the  woods  are  rapidly  disappearing,  and  the  par- 


.  /. 


142 


ties  settled  on  these  lands  require  all  the  wood  they  have  got 
for  their  own  consumption  in  a  variety  of  ways. 

Int.  637. — Do  you  mean  that  this  land  in  1858  would  have 
been  worth  $10  per  acre  to  the  Company,  for  the  Company's 
uses? 

Ans. — This  land  in  1846  was  used  and  occupied  by  the 
Company  ;  but  previous  to  1858  pretty  much  the  whole  of  it 
had  been  taken  possession  of  by  squatters  or  donation  claim- 
ants, so  that  at  that  period  there  was  nothing  left  for  the  Com- 
pany to  use,  with  the  exception  of  the  land  enclosed  on  the 
Mill  Plain  Farm,  with  the  grist  and  saw-mills.  Under  these 
circumstances,  so  far  as  the  use  of  land  was  concerned,  it  was 
of  little  or  no  value  to  the  Company  in  1858.  Had  the  Com- 
pany had  entire  control  of  the  land,  to  use  it  as  they  pleased, 
I  should  think  $10  per  acre  would  be  a  low  value  for  such  use 
or  purpose. 

Int.  638. — What  was  this  land  worth  in  1858  to  a  private 
individual?  '    '  * 

Ans. — I  cannot  say  what  value  the  settlers  or  farmers  on 
these  lands  placed  upon  them  in  1858. 

Int.  639. — What  part  of  this  land  was  then  in  cultivation  ? 

Ans. — I  scarcely  know  myself.  Around  all  the  settlers' 
houses  on  the  river-front  tnere  was  more  or  less  land  under 
cultivation.  In  like  manner  the  settlers  back  on  the  Mill 
Plain  had  generally  a  good  deal  of  land  under  cultivation  ; 
so  that  altogether  there  must  have  been  a  considerable  area 
of  land  used  in  this  tract  for  agricultural  purposes,  that  is, 
between  what  was  actually  cultivated  and  what  was  used  for 
the  pasturage  of  horses  and  other  stock. 

Int.  640. — In  part  answer  to  interrogatory  5  of  your  di- 
rect examination,  you  say  "the  remainder  of  the  claim  is 
worth  from  $1  50  to  $3  per  acre."  When  was  it  worth  that, 
and  to  whom  was  it  worth  it  ? 

Ans. — I  refer  to  the  year  1858,  I  believe,  and  that  would 
have  been  its  value  to  the  Company,  if  the  Company  had  been 
in  possession  of  it  then. 

Int.  641. — Was  not  all  this  tract  timber-laud,  and  ^veral 
miles  from  the  water? 


ftjcveral 


148 

Ans. — It  could  not  be  all  timber-land,  because,  according 
to  my  estimate,  the  First,  Second,  Third,  and  Fourth  Plains 
were  included  in  this  tract.  Of  course,  as  compared  to  the 
whole,  the  plain  country  is  a  small  proportion  of  these  lands. 
The  line  behind  Fort  Vancouver  would  come  within  nearly  a 
mile  of  the  river,  and  the  line  would  go  down  the  river  some 
distance,  at  a  like  parallel.  After  that,  the  line  of  this  tract 
would  be  at  a  distance  of  some  miles  from  the  river. 

Int.  642. — Did  you  ever  know  of  any  sales  that  had  been 
made  of  parts  of  this  land  ?  . 

Ans, — I  do  not  remember  of  any. 

Int.  643. — Did  the  Company  make  any  use  of  it,  except  of 
those  parts  which  were  riot  timbered  ? 

Ans. — Previous  to  1846,  they  had  horses  and  cattle  pastur- 
ing in  the  woods,  and  everywhere  else,  where  they  could  get 
grass.  In  1858,  when  I  was  at  Vancouver,  I  don't  think  they 
used  any  of  it  in  any  way. 

Int.  644. — Do  you  know  that  the  Company  used  a  hundredth 
part  of  this  timbered  land  for  pasturage  ? 

Ans. — Of  ray  own  knowledge,  I  can't  say  how  much  they 
used.  To  the  best  of  my  knowledge  and  belief,  they  used  the 
whole  of  it  for  pasturage  and  other  purposes. 

l7it.  645. — Was  not  nearly  all  of  this  tract  outside  of  the 
limit  put  to  the  Company's  claim  by  Mr.  Ballenden? 

Ans. — Without  knowing  more  of  what  Mr.  Ballenden  did 
in  the  matter  than  I  do  now,  I  am  qii'te  unable  to  answer  the 
question. 

Int.  646. — What  do  you  know  of  what  Mr.  Ballonden  did 
in  the  matter  ? 

Ans. — I  do  not  recollect  now,  what  Mr.  Ballenden  did,  ex- 
cept that  when  in  charge  of  Fort  Vancouver  he  had  some 
communication  with  the  Surveyor  General  of  Oregon  Terri- 
tory, regarding  the  company's  lands  at  Fort  Vancouver,  the 
substance  of  which  has  escaped  my  memory. 

Int.  647. — Look  at  this  letter,  marked  D,  which  is  to  be  nr- 
nexed  to  your  deposition,  and  say  whether  it  is  a  correct  copy 
of  a  letter  you  wrote  and  sent  to  that  James  Tilton,  Sur- 
veyor General  of  Washington  Territory,  May  9,  1865  ? 


■ 


. 


.lJ 


(If 


144 

(The  introduction  of  the  letter  spoken  of  objected  to  as 
incompetent.) 

Ans. — I  believe  it  is  a  true  copy,  so  far  as  I  remember. 

Int.  648. — From  what  record  did  you  make  this  extract 
from  Mr.  Ballenden's  letter  ? 

An». — I  suppose  it  must  have  been  from  some  copy  of  Mr. 
Ballenden's  letter  to  Mr.  Preston. 

Int.  649. — Was  it  the  custom  of  the  oflBcers  of  the  Co  n-' 
pany  to  keep  copies  of  their  official  letters  at  Vancouver  ? 

Ans. — It  was  the  custom. 

Int.  650. — In  what  shape  were  these  copies  kept  ? 

Ans. — As  far  as  I  remember,  they  were  kept  in  books. 

Int.  651. — Were  copies  of  the  official  letters  sent  to  them 
preserved  in  books  at  Vancouver  ? 

Ans. — I  think  not ;  the  letters  themselves  were  kept ;  that 
was  all. 

Int.  652. — Were  these  copies  and  letters  left  at  Vancouver 
when  the  officer  was  transferred  to  another  place,  or  left  the 
Company's  service  ? 

Ans. — That  is  as  it  might  be.  Some  letters  he  might  leave, 
and  some  he  might  take  with  him. 

Int.  653. — Are  not  many  of  these  letter-books  and  letters 
now  at 'Victoria? 

Ana. — Probably  they  are.  I  can't  say  so  from  my  own 
knowledge.  .  , 


Examination  Resumed,  April  4. 

Int.  654. — Did  you,  at  the  time  you  wrote  the  letter  re- 
ferred to  in  "interrogatory  647,"  know  the  claim  or  claiirs 
to  land  on  the  Columbia  river,  near  Vancouver,  made  by  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company  ? 

Ans. — I  was  not  aware  what  the  claim  was. 

Int.  655. — Were  you  not  then  in  charge  of  the  Company's 
post  at  Vancouver?  ,  \ 

Ans. — I  believe  I  was. 

Int.  656. — Was  not  Mr.  Ogden  at  that  time  dead  ? 

Ans. — He  was. 


1 


145 


as 

bCt 

Ir. 


em 

hat 

ver 
the 

ive, 

ters 

>wn 


re- 
the 


^r^ 


Int.  657. — When  did  you  first  know  what  lands  the  Com- 
pany claimed  at  Vancouver? 

An8. — I  don't  think  I  ever  knew  the  claim  there. 
.    Int.  658. — Did  you  not,  at  or  about  the  time  of  your  writ- 
ing this  letter  to  Mr.  Tilton,  write  to  the  oflBcers  of  Company 
at  London,  in  regard  to  the  matter  of  their  claim  ? 

Ana. — I  believe  I  did  so. 

Int.  659. — Did  they  not  reply  to  you  in  regard  to  their 
claim  ? 
^  Am. — I  believe  they  did. 

Int.  660. — Did  you  write  to  them  more  than  once  in  regard 
to  the  matter? 

Ans. — I  may  have  done  so.     I  do  not  remember  now. 

Int.  661. — Have  you  not  received  from  them  at  that  time, 
and  at  other  times,  various  communications  in  regard  to  this 
claim  ? 

Ans. — I  may  have  done  so. 

Int.  662. — Are  not  copies  of  your  letters  to  them  and  their 
replies  on  this  matter  probably  with  other  letters  at  Victoria? 

Aus. — They  may  be  there,  but  I  have  no  knowledge  of  them 
myself,  it  is  so  long  since  I  have  seen  them. 

Jnt.  663. — Did  the  officers  at  London  never  put  a  particu- 
ular  limit  to  their  claim  at  Vancouver  in  these  letters  to  you? 

Ans. — I  have  no  recollection  of  their  having  done  so. 

Int.  664. — Do  you  now  know  what  lands  the  Company 
claimed  at  Vancouver? 

Ans. — Referring  to  the  lands  in  the  occupation  of  the  Com- 
pany prior  to  and  in  the  year  1846,  at  Fort  Vancouver  and  its 
neighborhood,  I  do  not  know  what  the  Company  actually 
claimed  then. 

Int.  665. — When  did  you  first  know  what  lands  the  Com- 
pany now  claim  at  Vancouver? 

Ans. — I  don't  know  now  what  the  Company's  actual  land 
claim  there  is. 

Int.  666. — Under  what  circumstances  did  Mr.  Ballonden 
write  the  letter  quoted  in  your  letter  to  Mr.  Tilton  ? 

Ans. — I  have  no  recollection  about  it. 

Int.  667. — At  the  time  you  wrote  your  letter  to  Mr.  Tilton, 
10  B 


i  Mi 
\  I  I 


146 


Sit* 


did  you  know  of  any  other  limit  to  the  Company's  claim  than 
that  given  by  Mr.  Ballenden  in  1862  ? 

(Objected  to  by  Mr.  Lander,  as  argumentative  and  assuming 
what  has  not  been  stated  in  evidence.) 

Ans. — According  to  my  idea  of  the  claim,  it  was  something 
very  different  from  the  lines  given  by  Mr.  Ballenden. 

Int.  668. — Will  you  answer  the  last  question  directly  ? 

Ans. — Before  answering  the  question  more  fully,  I  should 
like  to  see  Mr.  Ballenden's  letter,  without,  which  I  cannot  say 
whether  he  put  limits  to  the  claim  or  not.  * 

Int.  669. — Will  you  answer  the  following  question  directly : 
Did  you  ever  know  any  officer  of  the  Company  to  put  any 
limits  to  the  Company's  claim  other  than  those  contained  in 
the  letter  of  Mr.  Ballenden  ? 

Ans. — I  did  myself;  Sir  James  Douglas  also.  There  may 
be  others  who  did  so,  but  I  do  not  remember  about  them  now. 

Int.  670. — Did  either  you  or  Sir  James  Douglas  have  any 
authority  to  put  limits  to  the  Company's  claim  ? 

Aps. — Sir  James  Douglas  had  authority,  no  doubt,  to  put 
limits  to  the  Company's  land  claim,  in  1846,  for  the  reason 
that  he  was  then  in  charge  of  the  Company's  business  there 
as  chief  factor.  He  had,  moreover,  been  attached  to  that  es- 
tablishment for  many  years  previously,  also,  as  a  factor,  in 
connection  with  the  late  Dr.  McLaughlin,  now  deceased.  For 
myself,  I  had  no  authority  from  the  Company  to  put  a  limit 
to  the  land  claim. 

I)it.  671. — Do  you  know  that  Sir  James  Douglas,  in  1846, 
had  autliority  from  the  Company  to  put  a  limit  to  their  claim 
at  Vancouver? 

Afis. — I  believe  that  Sir  James  Douglas  had  authority  to 
do  so. 

InL  072.— Did  he  do  so?  v  / 

Ans. — I  believe  he  did  so. 

Int.  073. — Why  did  he  do  so  at  that  time  ? 

Ans. — I  cannot  say. 

Int.  074. — In  your  answers  to  various  questions  you  have 
said  "I  believe  that,"  &c. ;  do  you  mean  by  this  expression 
that  you  know,  or  that  you  only  think  that,  &c.  ? 


L846, 
claim 


have 
bssion 


147 

Ans. — Referring  to  my  reply  to  "interrogatory  6Y2,"  I 
mean  that  Sir  James  Douglas  did  so,  to  the  best  of  my  know- 
ledge and  belief. 

Int.  675. — State  all  that  you  know  about  Sir  James  Doug- 
las making  a  limit  to  the  Company's  claim  in  1846. 

Ans. — I  know  very  little  about  it  myself;  probably  I  was 
told  of  it  by  Mr.  Ogden.  I  could  not  say  what  limit  he  made. 
I  have  some  idea  of  it ;  I  could  not  say  exactly  what  it  was ; 
I  do  not  know  to  whom  he  made  it,  or  why  he  made  it.  I 
knew  that  he  was  in  charge  of  the  business,  and  presume  that 
he  had  authority. 

Int.  676. — Did  you  know  what  his  limit  was  when  you  wrote 
your  letter  to  Mr.  Tilton  ? 

Ans. — What  knowledge  I  had  of  it  I  was  possessed  of  at 
that  time. 

Int.  677. — -Did  it  embrace  more  or  less  than  the  limit,  as 
given  by  Mr.  Ballenden  ? 

(The  portion  of  the  question  referring  to  the  limit  set  by 
Mr.  Ballenden  objected  to  by  Mr.  Landor,  as  assuming  what 
is  not  in  evidence.) 

An%. — I  am  so  uncertain  as  to  what  Mr.  Ballenden's  limits 
were,  that  I  cannot  draw  any  comparison  between  the  two. ' 

Int.  678. — Can't  you  understand  what  Mr.  Ballenden's  lim- 
its were,  as  quoted  by  you  in  your  letter  to  Mr.  Tilton  ? 

Ans. — Writing  to  Mr.  Tilton  on  the  9th  of  May,  1855,  in 
reply  to  a  communication  from  him,  who  was  then  Surveyor 
General  of  Washington  Territory,  I  find  that  I  called  his  at- 
tention to  an  extract  from  a  letter  of  the  late  Mr.  Ballenden, 
of  30th  July,  1852,  to  the  then  Surveyor  General  of  the  Ter- 
ritory of  Oregon,  and  in  which  Mr.  Ballenden  requests  that 
within  certain  lines  or  limits  that  no  surveys  be  made  or  claims 
granted  without  the  approbation  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Com- 
pany. The  lines  and  limits,  as  given  in  the  copy  of  my  letter 
to  Mr.  Tilton,  are  those  of  the  late  Mr.  Ballenden,  and  not 
mine  ;  so  that  I  really  do  not  know  how  they  run,  or  what  ex- 
tent of  land  they  enclose. 

Int.  679.  — Is  your  knowledge  of  the  country  so  slight  that, 


\ 


\ 


.    4r*^    ■ 


148 

on  reading  the  limit  given  by  Mr.  Ballenden,  you  cannot  tell 
how  the  lines  run,  or  what  extent  of  land  they  enclose  ? 

Ans. — I  have  a  certain  knowledge  of  that  country,  but  I 
have  no  knowledge  of  surveying,  and  as  I  read  the  lines  and 
limits  in  the  quotation  from  the  late  Mr.  Ballenden 's  letter,  I 
shouiu  say  that  it  would  require  a  surveyor  of  some  ability  ' 
to  follow  those  lines  and  calculate  the  area  of  land  enclosed 
by  them. 

Int.  680. — Did  you  not  know,  when  you  wrote  the  letter  to 
Mr.  Tilton,  and  don't  you  know  now  about  how  these  lines 
run,  and  how  much  land  they  enclose? 

Ans. — On  receiving  the  letter  from  Mr.  Tilton,  to  which 
mine  of  tbe  9th  of  May,  1855,  was  in  reply,  I  was  informed 
that  the  late  Mr.  Ballenden  had  been  in  communication 
with  the  then  Surveyor  General  of  Oregon  Territory,  and 
found  that  the  late  Mr.  Ballenden  had  written,  on  the  30th  of 
July,  1852,  to  Surveyor  General  Preston,  and  among  other 
matters  had  requested  Mr.  Preston  not  to  survey  or  make 
claims  within  certain  limits  then  detailed.  In  writing  to  Sur- 
veyor General  Tilton,  on  the  9th  of  May,  1855,  nearly  three 
years  after  the  date  of  Mr.  Ballenden's  letter,  and  as  the 
Surveyor  General's  office  for  Washington  Territory  was  then 
first  established  at  Olympia,  having  previous  to  that  period 
been  at  Salem,  in  Oregon,  I  deemed  it  my  duty,  as  a  matter 
that  was  already  on  record,  to  send  him,  as  I  did  in  the  letter 
mentioned,  the  extract  from  Mr.  Ballenden's  letter  of  July 
30,  1852,  to  Mr.  Preston,  requesting,  as  Mr.  Ballenden  had 
done,  that  as  surveys  be  made,  or  claims  granted  within  the 
limits  mentioned,  I  have  had  nothing  more  to  do  with  those 
lines  or  limits  since,  and  I  have  no  knowledge,  or  a  very  im- 
perfect one,  as  to  how  the  lines  run,  or  the  quantity  of  land 
bounded  by  them.  I  knew  nothing  more  then  than  now  as  to 
how  the  lines  run  and  the  quantity  of  land  they  included. 

Int.  681. — Have  you  not  been  engaged  in  answering  and 
considering  how  you  should  answer  the  interrogatories  since 
''654"  for  at  least  three  and  a  half  hours,  the  usual  time 
occupied  by  your  examination  each  day,  while  there  has  been 
but  little  delay  in  preparing  the  questions  for  you  ? 


7TTir:''7^'''ZZ''Z 


149 

(The  counsel  asked  the  last  question  in  order  that  he  may 
show  as  well  as  he  can  the  hesitancy  of  the  witness,  which  he 
considers  to  have  been  unusual,  and  even  on  this  day  than  on 
previous  days.  Any  such  interpolation  protested  against, 
and  the  fact  stated  not  admitted.) 

Ana. — The  sort  of  work  I  had  to  do  has  taken  time.  I  had 
to  have  reference  to  letters  and  copies  of  letters,  which  have 
taken  up  much  time.  I  have  not  stopped  to  smoke  or  to  eat, 
or  to  gad  about.  I  have  all  the  time  been  in  the  room,  and 
however  long  I  may  have  been  in  niaking  my  answers,  I  have 
certainly  been  fully  occupied  the  whole  time  I  have  been  in 
the  room,  whether  three  and  a  half  or  four  hours ;  I  don't 
know  how  long  it  has  been. 


Examination  Resumed^  April  5. 

Int.  682. — When  you  wrote  your  letter  to  Mr.  Tilton,  did 
you  not  know  more  about  the  Company's  claim  at  Vancouver 
than  you  know  now  ? 

Ans. — I  did  not  then  know  the  exact  quantity  of  land 
claimed  by  the  Company  about  Fort  Vancouver,  nor  do  I 
know  now ;  otherwise,  I  am  not  aware  that  I  knew  more  of 
the  claim  than  I  do  now. 

Int.  683. — When  did  you  set  limits  to  the  Company's  claim, 
when  in  your  answer  to  interrogatory  670,  you  say  "  you  had 
no  authority?" 

Ans. — My  own  idea  of  the  limits  is  of  a  very  old  date ;  I 
set  limits  as  far  back  as  1846. 

Int.  684. — Have  you  any  records  of  the  limits  you  put  to 
the  Company's  claim  in  1846  ? 

Ans. — I  don't  know  that  I  have  anything  of  that  kind.  If 
I  have  such,  it  would  be  of  a  private  nature,  and  I  don't  know 
now  where  I  would  look  for  it.  I  have  no  recollection  of 
making  any  limits  after  1846. 

Int.  685. — Had  Mr.  Ballendeu  any  authority  to  fix  limits  to 
the  Company's  claim  ? 

Ans. — I  cannot  say  whether  he  had  or  not. 


'1 


-■  iij-.jMmiw".'*-. 


150 


Int.  686. — Were  not  the  limits  he  set  afterwards  approved 
by  the  officers  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  at  London  ? 

Ana. — I  hardly  know  whether  they  were  approved  of  or 
not. 

Int.  687. — Did  you  not,  when  you  found  Mr.  Ballenden's 
letter  on  file  at  Vancouver,  find  letters  approving  of  his 
course  from  the  officers  at  London  ? 

Ans. — I  never  found  such  letters. 
,  Int.  688. — Where  were  the  assistants  of  Mr.  Tilton  survey- 
ing at  the  time  you  wrote  this  letter  to  him  ? 

Ans. — I  don't  remember. 

Int.  689. — Besides  the  limits  of  Sir  James  Douglas,  Mr. 
Ballenden,  and  yourself,  has  any  officer  of  the  Company, 
whom  you  knew  had  authority  to  do  so,  ever  defined  the  limits 
of  the  Company's  claim  at  Vancouver  ? 

Ans. — I  have  no  personal  knowledge  of  such  myself,  as  far 
as  I  remember. 

Int.  690. — Is  not  all  your  knowledge  of  Sir  James  Douglas's 
limits  derived  from  what  you  think  Mr.  Ogden  told  you  ? 

Ana. — That  is  my  recollection. 

Int.  691. — Was  not  Mr.  Ogden  dead  when  you  wrote  the 
letter  to, Mr.  Tilton? 

Ans. — I  believe  he  was. 

Int.  692. — Why  did  you  not  in  the  letter  set  forth  the  limits 
you  thought  Mr.  Ogden  told  you  had  been  put  to  the  Com- 
pany's claim  by  Sir  James  Douglas,  whom  you  presumed  had 
authority  to  do  so  ? 

Ans. — I  had  no  authority  from  the  Company  in  London  to 
define  the  limits  of  the  claim  at  Vancouver.  I  sent  Mr. 
Ballenden's  limit  in  as  a  matter  of  necessity,  for  the  simple 
reason  that,  nearly  three  years  previously,  Mr.  Ballenden 
had  requested  that  no  surveys  should  be  made  within  certain 
limits.  Had  I  written  to  the  Surveyor  General  of  Washing- 
ton Territory  to  alter  the  lines  and  limits  given  by  Mr.  Bal- 
lenden, up  to  which  surveys  had  already  been  made,  it  would 
have  been  too  late  for  that  officer  to  pay  any  attention  to  my 
wishes. 

Int.  693. — Did  you  not  understand  that  Mr.  Tilton  requested 


:'U. 


161 

of  jon  that  a.  map  or  authoritative  statement  of  the  claim  or 
claims  to  land  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  on  the  Columbia 
river  near  Fort  Vancouver  should  be  handed  to  him? 

Ans. — Judging  from  the  copy  of  my  letter  of  9th  of  May, 
1855,  and  already  referred  to,  I  should  say  that  such  a  request 
was  made  by  Mr.  Tilton. 

Int.  694. — Why,  then,  did  you  not  give  him  an  "  authoritative 
statement  of  the  claim,"  as  you  understood  it  to  have  been 
made  by  Sir  James  Douglas  ? 

Ana. — I  had  no  authority  to  do  so  from  the  Company  in 
London. 

Int.  695. — Why  did  you  give  him  the  "statement  of  the 
claim"  as  made  by  Mr.  Ballenden? 

^w«.— The  late  Mr.  Ballenden's  letter  of  80th  of  July,  1852, 
to  Mr.  Preston,  was  then  on  file  at  the  Surveyor  General's 
office  at  Salem,  in  Oregon.  In  writing  to  Mr.  Tilton,  in  reply 
to  his  communication,  I  sent  the  extract  from  Mr.  Ballenden's 
letter,  and  the  following  is  quoted  from  the  copy  of  my  letter 
of  9th  of  May,  1855,  to  Mr.  Tilton:  "I  take  the  liberty  of 
calling  your  attention  to  the  following  extract  ♦  *  from 
Chief  Factor  Ballenden's  letter  of  30th  of  July,  1852,  to  Sur- 
veyor General  Preston,  of  Oregon  Territory,  and  I  have  to 
request  that  no  surveys  be  made  or  claims  granted  within  the 
limits  stated  by  Mr.  Ballenden.  The  reasons  for  sending  the 
extract  from  Mr.  Ballenden's  letter  are  given  in  the  above 
quotation." 

Int.  696. — Why  did  you  request  that  no  surveys  be  made 
or  claims  granted  within  the  limits  stated  by  Mr.  Ballenden, 
and  not  within  the  limits  given  by  Sir  James  Douglas? 

Ana. — I  had  no  choice  in  the  matter.  Mr.  Ballenden's  lines 
and  limits  had  been  acted  on  by  the  Surveyor  General  of 
Oregon  for  nearly  three  years,  when  it  would  have  been  too 
late  for  me  to  have  altered  them.  When  I  wrote  to  Mr.  Tilton 
I  had,  however,  no  authority  from  the  Company  to  give  any 
lines  or  limits  to  their  claim,  and  of  which  I  informed  Mr. 
Tilton. 

Int.  697. — Did  you  know  at  the  time  you  wrote  to  Mr.  Til- 
ton whether  the  limits  as  given  by  Mr.  Ballenden  were  made 


■       -i 

i 

i      I 

-,  ■■■" 

'*.¥Vv;i''itf"^<i«»»  *-5aw^**»»-«<»«'«-«-fc^--*t,-«-— .t^v^M^^.^^ 


152 


by  authority,  or  had  been  approved  by  the  ofRcers  of  the  Com- 
pany at  London? 

Ana. — I  dill  not  know,  when  I  wrote  Mr.  Tilton,  whether 
the  Company  had  authorized  Mr.  Ballenden  to  fix  limits  to 
the  Company's  claim,  nor  whether  the  officers  (jf  the  Company 
in  London  had  approved  of  the  limits  arranged  by  him. 

Int.  698. — Why,  then,  did  you  set  forth  what  to  you  was  an. 
unauthorized  claim,  rather  than  the  limits  of  Sir  James  Doug- 
las, which  you  presumed  to  have  been  authorized? 

An». — I  cannot  see  from  the  copy  of  my  letter  to  Mr.  Til- 
ton  of  9th  of  May,  1855,  that  I  set  forth  any  claims  either 
authorized  or  unauthorized.  I  simply  asked  Mr.  Tilton,  so 
far  as  I  understand  the  letter,  not  to  make  surveys  or  grant 
claims  within  certain  limits  as  stated  by  the  late  Mr.  Ballen- 
den. 

Int.  699. — Why  did  you  request  Mr.  Tilton  not  to  make 
surveys  or  grant  claims  within  certain  limits,  as  stated  by  the 
late  Mr.  Ballenden,  and  which  to  you  were  unauthorized, 
rather  than  within  certain  limits  which  you  thought  had  been 
made  by  Sir  James  Douglas  with  authority  ? 

Am. — I  have  not  said  anywhere  that  the  acts  of  the  late 
Mr.  Ballenden  were  unauthorized.  I  have  said,  however, 
somewhere,  that  without  his  letter  to  Surveyor  General  Pres- 
ton, I  could  not  say  what  he  had  done  with  regard  to  the  Com- 
pany's lands  at  Vancouver.  I  am  unable  to  give  any  other 
reason  for  the  limits  given  to  Mr.  Tilton,  in  my  letter  to  him 
of  9th  of  May,  1855,  than  those  already  stated,  namely  :  that 
too  long  a  period  had  elapsed  since  Mr.  Ballenden  had  written 
to  Mr.  Preston,  in  July,  1852 ;  and  moreover,  that  I  had  no 
authority  from  the  Company  to  give  limits  or  lines  of  any 
kind  to  their  claim. 


Examination  Resumed,  April  6. 


Int.  700. — How  much  land  is  claimed  by  the  Company  at 
their  post  at  the  mouth  of  the  Cowlitz  river  ? 

An8. — I  do  not  know  what  quantity  of  land  the  Company 
claims  there. 


158 

Int.  701. — Do  you  know  how  much  they  used  there  ? 

Ana. — So  far  as  I  know,  it  must  have  been  a  small  quantity 
of  land. 

Int.  702. — What  was  its  value  in  1846,  and  now  ? 

Ana. — I  could  not  say. 

Int.  703. — Were  not  the  Company's  buildings  at  the  Cow- 
litz sold  by  you  to  a  Mr.  Huntington,  in  the  spring  of  1857  'i 

Ans. — I  believe  they  were  sold  by  me  to  him,  for  the  reason 
that  the  freshets  in  the  Cowlitz  river  had  washed  away  the 
ground  from  under  one  of  them,  and  the  other  would  soon  be 
in  the  same  condition ;  I  considered  them  untenable. 

Int.  704. — How  much  land  does  the  Company  claim  at  Fort 
George  ? 

Ans. — Two  acres,  I  think. 

Int.  705. — To  whom  do  you  estimate  this  land  to  have  been 
worth  $500,  in  1846  ? 

Ans. — My  estimate  of  its  value  refers  of  course  to  the  Com- 
pany. 

Int.  706. — What  was  it  worth  to  any  one  else  ? 

Ans. — I  could  not  say  what  it  was  worth  to  anybody  else ; 
there  was  no  party  down  there  to  buy  such  property. 

Int.  707. — Was  not  this  site  always  looked  upon  as  United 
States  property;  and  as  such,  given  up  to  Major  Hathe- 
way  ? 

Ans. — I  know  nothing  about  it  myself;  I  was  not  aware  of 
that. 

Int.  708. — What  was  the  cost  of  the  buildings  at  Astoria  ? 

Ans. — I  cannot  say  what  they  cost. 

Int.  709. — Why  do  you  estimate  the  value  of  the  buildings 
in  1846  at  $4,000  'i 

Ans. — That  is  my  estimate  of  the  value  to  the  Company. 

Int.  710. — What  were  they  worth  to  private  individuals  in 
1846? 

Ans. — I  had  no  means  of  ascertaining  their  saleable  value 
in  1846. 

Int.  711. — Has  your  estimate  anything  to  do  with  their  cost? 

Ans. — My  estimate  refers  to  their  value  to  the  business,  and 
not  to  their  cost. 


i 


*}. 


I 


.mi^^ 


^™.. 


154 


Int.  712. — To  whom  were  they  worth  more  than  $4,000, 
when  they  were  turned  over  to  Major  Hatheway  ? 

Ans. — I  should  think  to  almost  anybody  then,  for  this  rea- 
son :  I  believe  I  have  seen  a  lette'*  Trom  the  late  Major  Hath- 
eway, dated  some  time  in  tbe  voar  1850,  to  the  late  Mr.  Ogden, 
requesting  that  the  Compf.iy's  buildings  at  Astoria  might  be 
turned  over  to  him  for  t'le  use  of  his  command.  At  that  date, 
lumber  was  very  hign  priced  in  Oregon,  and  the  wages  of 
tradesmen  were  at  extreme  rates,  so  that,  at  that  time,  four  or 
five  thousand  dollars  would  not  go  very  far  in  building  houses. 
For  this  reason,  I  consider  these  buildings  that  the  Company 
had  at  Astoria  to  be  worth  more  in  1850  to  anybody  than  they 
were  to  the  Company  in  1846. 

Int.  713. — Have  you  Major  Hatheway 's  letter,  which  you 
believe  you  saAv,  or  a  copy  of  it? 

Ans. — My  impression  is,  that  the  letter  in  question  is  already 
in  evidence  in  this  case  by  the  Company.  I  have  no  copy 
of  it.        '         . 

Int.  714. — Would  it  have  cost  more  to  have  erected  build- 
ings in  Washington  Territory  about  the  year  1850  than  at  any 
previous  time? 

Ans. — That  I  do  not  know  about ;  but  there  was  no  ques- 
tion but  that  lumber  and  mechanics'  wages  were  extremely 
high  that  year.     I  do  not  know  much  about  the  cost. 

Int.  715. — In  1850,  were  not  the  Indians  in  tlie  neighbor- 
hood of  Fort  George  nearly  extinct,  and  had  not  the  fur  trade 
entirely  ceased  to  be  prohtable  at  that  post  ? 

Ans. — I  was  not  in  the  country  then,  and  cannot  say  whether 
the  trade  at  the  post  was  profitable  or  not.  With  respect  to 
the  Indians,  there  were  never,  in  my  time,  many  at  the  post 
itself,  or  in  its  neighborhood ;  but  still  the  trade  carried  on 
with  them  was  always  more  or  less  profitable. 

Int.  716. — Do  you  not  know  as  much  about  the  value  of  the 
Company's  trade  in  1850  as  you  do  about  the  value  of  build- 
ings at  that  time? 

Ans. — I  know  nothing  of  the  vali.e  of  the  trade  in  1850. 
My  estimate  of  the  value  of  the  buildings  that  year  is  based 


155 

on  the  information  I  had  with  respect  to  the  price  of  lumber 
and  the  wages  of  the  tradesmen. 

Int.  717. — Do  you  not  know  or  believe  that  E'ort  George 
had  been  virtually  abandoned  by  the  Company  in  lH/50? 

Ans. — I  have  no  knowledge  or  belief  about  it,  I  Maw  tlnB 
letter  fvom  Major  Hatheway,  from  which  I  infi-rrfd  that  the 
place  was  turned  over  to  him,  at  his  request. 

Int.  718. — Had  not  Mr.  Birnie  left,  and  had  not  Mr.  Lattic, 
who  had  remained  tor  a  time  in  charge,  been  drowned  the  year 
before  ? 

Ans. — To  the  best  of  my  recollection,  Mr.  Birnie  left  the 
service  of  the  Company  in  the  spring  of  1846,  and  Mr.  Lattie 
also,  some  time  in  the  summer  of  that  year. 

Int.  719. — Who  was  in  charge  of  Fort  Ger>rge  in  ISriO? 

Ans. — I  cannot  say.  When  I  left  the  Columbia  river,  in 
January,  1847,  Mr.  Charles  Forrest,  now  deceased,  had  charge 
of  the  place.     That  is  the  last  I  know  of  it. 

Int.  720. — Were  not  the  buildings  at  Astoria  noon  pulhd 
down  by  the  troops,  ac  utterly  worthless? 

Anfi. — I  have  no  knowledge  of  what  the  troopH  did  with  the 
buildings. 

Int.  721. — ^When  did  you  last  see  the  buildingM? 

Ans. — So  far  as  I  remember,  in  January,  1847. 

Int.  722. — When  did  you  sail  up  the  river  again? 

Ans. — In  September,  1853. 

Int.  723. — Do  you  know  that  these  buildingn  were  ever 
used  after  1850? 

Ans. — I  have  no  knowledge  about  it  at  all. 

Int.  724. — Was  the  Company  ever  disturbed  in  its  occupn- 
»  on  of  its  post  at  the  mouth  of  the  Cowlitz  river  exeept  by 
the  water  which  washed  away  the  bluff  on  which  their  build- 
ings stood? 

Ans. — I  am  not  aware  of  the  Company  being  dixturbed  in 
the  occupation  of  the  post  at  the  mouth  of  the  Cowlitz,  except 
as  stated  in  the  question. 

Int.  725. — Where  was  the  fishing  station  at  Chinook  or 
Pillar  Rock? 

Ans. — It  was  20  or  25  miles  above  Fort  George,  on  the 


156 


^ 


right  bank  of  the  Columbia,  on  the  main  shore,  close  to  a  well- 
known  rock  there,  called  Pillar  |lock,  which  stands  out  in  the 
river  alone. 

Int.  726. — What  lands  do  the  Company  claim  there? 

An%. — I  do  not  know. 

Int.  727. — What  lands  did  they  use  there  ?  ' 

Ana. — I  do  not  know.  •., 

Int.  728. — What  buildings  did  they  have  there? 

Ans. — I  do  not  know. 

Int.  729. — When  did  the  Company  cease  to  occupy  this  fish- 
ing post? 

Ans. — I  do  not  know. 

Int.  730. — Were  the  Company  ever  disturbed  in  the  occu- 
pation of  this  post? 

An%. — Not  that  I  know  of. 

Int.  731. — Do  you  know  that  they  ever  used  it  after  1847  ? 

An%. — I  really  cannot  say.     I  left  the  river  that  year,  and 
I  have  no  farther  knowledge  of  it. 

Int.  732. — How  much  land  do  the  Company  claim  at  Cape 
Disappointment? 

Ans. — I  believe  the  Company  claim  there  640  acres." 

Int.  733. — State  all  the  knowledge  you  have  in  regard  to 
this  daim. 

Ans. — I  was  down  at  the  Cape  in  1842,  in  the  autumn,  and 
the  next  time  was  in  January,  1846.  I  was  then  on  board 
of  a  ship  on  my  way  to  California.  The  ship  was  detained  in 
Baker's  Bay  for  something  like  six  weeks,  before  we  got  to 
sea,  during  which  period  I  was  a  good  deal  on  shore  and  picked 
up  some  knowledge  of  the  locality.  At  this  time  the  Company 
had  a  place  there  in  charge  of  a  man  of  the  name  of  Kipling. 
Some  time  in  the  commencement  of  February,  the  late  Mr. 
Lewes,  with  a  party  of  hands,  came  there  from  Fort  Vancouver 
to  survey  the  claim.  And  from  him  I  had  the  information  as  to 
its  extent.  I  returned  to  the  river  in  the  month  of  July,  1846, 
and  found  a  party  of  people  putting  up  a  large  building  on 
the  land  at  the  Cape,  which,  on  inquiry,  I  found  a  man  by  the 
name  of  Spence,  now  deceased,  was  putting  up  for  the  Com- 
pany, under  a  contract  that  he  had  made,  some  time  previously. 


*•<<«#/•••%' kr  »H- 


-^..«-^  <>■< 


.'VlK' 


i' 


157      ^ 

to  that  eflFect,  with  the  Company.  When  I  left  the  river,  in 
January,  1847,  I  was  detained  in  Baker's  Bay  several  days. 
Spence  had  by  this  time  got  the  large  building  well  advanced 
outwardly,  but  not  much  done  with  the  inside  of  it.  Mr. 
Kipling  had  a  comfortable  house,  in  which  he  was  living,  not 
far  from  this  building.  He  had  also  a  small  piece  of  land  in 
cultivation  back  of  his  house,  on  which  he  had  raised  potatoes 
and  other  vegetables,  the  previous  summer.  There  was  nothing 
doing  there  by  the  Company  in  1842,  that  I  remember  of. 

Int.  734. — Did  the  Company  do  anything  there  before  1846'!' 

Arts. — I  am  unable  to  say.  I  found  Mr.  Kipling  there  in 
January,  1846;  he  must  have  been  there  some  months  pre- 
viously. 

Int.  735. — What  buildings  were  there  in  January,  1846  ? 

Arts. — They  did  not  amount  to  much — a  sort  of  log-cabin. 

Int.  736. — At  what  time  was  this  contract  made  with  Mr. 
Spence  ? 

Arts. — It  must  have  been  some  time  previous  to  when  I  saw 
him  at  the  Cape.     I  can't  say  exactly  as  to  the  date. 

Int.  737. — Did  you  ever  see  the  contract  ? 

Ans. — I  have  no  recollection  of  having  done  so. 

Int.  738.— What  did  he  contract  to  build  ? 

Ans. — I  could'not  say  ;  a  large  building. 

Int.  739. — Did  he  build  anything  else? 

Ans. — I  can't  say  whether  he  did  or  not. 

Int.  740. — What  was  the  contract  price  ? 

Ans. — I  have  forgotten  ;  it  was  a  considerable  sum,  though. 

Int.  741. — Did  the  Company  ever  pay  him  ? 

Ans. — I  presume  they  did. 

Int.  742. — Should  not  the  books  show  when  they  paid  him, 
and  how  much  they  paid  him  ? 

Ans. — I  cannot  say  what  the  books  show,  as  I  have  no  recol- 
lection of  having  seen  the  entries  ;  but  I  suppose  that  a  record 
of  such  payments  has  been  kept. 

Int.  743. — Did  the  Company  ever  erect  any  other  building 
there  than  this  ? 

Ans. — I  don't  rememoer  of  any. 

Int.  744. — About  how  large  was  this  building  V 


i 


158 


' 


Ans. — I  could  not  give  the  size  of  it  now.  My  recollection 
of  it,  however,  was  that  it  was  large  and  substantial. 

Int.  745. — What  do  you  mean  by  large  ? 

Am. — It  would  be  a  good-sized  building  anywhere. 

Int.  746. — How  large  a  building  is  "a  good-sized  building 
anywhere?" 

Ans. — Well,  I  suppose  this  building  was  about  60  feet  in 
length  by  40  in  breadth.     It  was  a  story  and  a  half  high. 

Int.  747. — Why  did  the  Company  erect  such  a  large  build- 
ing, in  1846,  at  Cape  Disappointment? 

Ana. — That  I  do  not  know. 

Int.  748. — What  did  they  ever  use  this  building  for? 

An9. — I  can't  say;  I  presume  it  was  occupied  by  the  people 
down  there  for  trading  and  traflScking  in. 

Int.  749. — How  long  did  the  Company  occupy  it  ? 

Ans. — I  hardly  know  myself. 

Int.  750.— Did  they  occupy  it  in  1854? 

Ana. — Yes ;  I  believe  Mr.  Kipling  was  down  there  in  1854  ? 

Int.  751. — Was  Mr.  Kipling  at  that  time  an  employe  of  the 
Company? 

Ans. — Yes ;  he  was  employed  by  the  Company. 

Int.  752. — What  were  his  duties,  and  where  was  he  stationed? 

An». — He  was  down  there  at  this  place,  tile  Cape,  trading. 

Int.  753. — What  was  the  amount  of  furs  procured  at  Cape 
Disappointment  each  year? 

Ans. — I  could  not  say  without  looking  at  the  books. 

Int.  754. — When  did  you  know  that  this  building  was  last 
used  by  the  Company  ? 

Ans. — Up  to  1858  was  the  last  I  know  of  it.  ' 

Int.  755. — Have  you  seen  this  building  since  1854? 

Ay^s. — I  am  not  very  sure  that  I  have.  / 

Int.  756. — Did  the  Company  use  any  land  at  Cape  Disap- 
pointment previous  to  1846  ? 

Ans. — I  cannot  say  that  they  did  so. 

Int.  757.— Did  the  Company  ever  use  ten  acres  of  land  at 
Cape  Disappointment  ?  ., 

Ans. — I  cannot  say  what  they  did  in  this  respect. 

Int.  758. — Have  you  ever  been  there  since  1847  ? 


r-yT'"*M'>n»"*'''— w*"'*"^<^^*  iiiinwiwii  I 


169 


tion 

ling 
t  in 
likl- 

jple 


Ana. — I  was  down  there  once;  I  hardly  recollect  when.  It 
was  some  time  after  1854. 

Int.  759. — How  much  did  they  use  then  ? 

Ans. — I  do  not  know  what  they  used  then. 

Int.  760. — Do  you  know  whether  the  building  was  standing 
then? 

Ans. — I  believe  it  was  standing  then;  I  saw  it  from  a 
distance. 

Int.  761. — Were  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  ever  interfered 
with  in  the  use  of  this  building? 

An8. — Not  that  I  know  of. 

Int.  762. — Were  they  ever  interfered  with  in  the  use  of  any 
land  they  had  ever  used  at  Cape  Disappointment  ? 

Ans. — I  do  not  know  that  they  were.  „, 


54? 

the      \ 


ed? 
Sng. 
ape 


last 


ap- 


at 


Examination  Resumed,  April  Sth. 

Int.   <63. — What  is  the  character  of  the  land  at  Cape  Dis- 
appointment? 

Ans. — The  land — what  was  level  of  it — was  timbered.     The 
remainder  of  it  was  rocky  and  precipitous. 

Int.  764. — Will  you  locate,  as  exactly  as  you  can,  the  build- 
ing you  have  described  as  situated  at  Cape  Disappointment? 

Ans. — All  I  can  say  is  it  was  in  Baker's  Bay,  some  little 
distance  from  the  inner  end  of  the  Cape. 

Int.  765. — Did  the  Company  ever  keep  any  cattle  there? 

Ans. — I  do  not  know.  i 

Int.  766. — Did  they  ever  make  any  roads  there? 

Ans. — There  was  a  road  from  Baker's  Bay  up  to  the  top  of 
the  Cape,  but  who  made  it  I  do  not  know. 

Int.  767. — Was  this  road  not  there  in  1842,  when  you  were 
there  ? 

Ans. — It  may  have  been  there,  but  I  do  not  remember. 

Itit.  768. — Did  the  Company  ever  carry  on  any  agricultural 
operations  at  Cape  Disappointment? 

-4w8.— iVot  that  I  know  of. 

Int.  769. — Where  were  the  furs  obtained  that  were  bought 
by  Mr.  Kipling?  , 


\ 


160 


Ans. — Plenty  of  furs  came  from  Shoal  Water  Bay.  The 
Clatsop  Indians  also  brought  furs  there.  There  was  quite  a 
fur  country  north  of  Cape  Disappointment,  on  the  shore  line 
— celebrated,  in  fact,  for  sea  otters  particularly. 

Int.  770. — What  oflSce  did  Mr.  Lewes  hold  in  the  Company 
when  you  saw  him  there  ? 

Ans. — At  the  time  I  refer  to  Mr.  Lewes  was  not  in  the  Com- 
pany's service,  having  left  it  about  a  year  previously. 

Int.  771. — How  do  you  know  that  the  Company's  claim  at 
Umpqua  is  a  mile  square  in  extent? 

Ana. — That  is  my  recollection  of  it.  I  think  I  have  seen 
the  notes,  or  something,  of  a  survey  of  it. 

Int.  772. — Was  this  survey  made  before  1846  ? 

Ans. — I  could  not  give  the  date  of  the  survey,  but  I  think 
the  notes  I  saw  were  of  a  later  date  than  that. 

Int.  773. — Who  had  authority  to  determine  the  Company's 
claim  there  after  1846  ? 

Ans. — I  do  not  know. 

Int.  774. — Was  it  ever  determined  before  1846  ? 

Ans. — I  suppose  it  was. 

Int.  775. — Why,  then,  was  this  survey  made  after  1846  ? 

Ans. — That  I  cannot  say. 

Int.  776.  —Do  you  know  that  the  Company  used  this  square 
mile  at  Umpqua — so  much  and  no  more  ? 

Ans. — I  cannot  say  what  the  Company  did  in  that  respect. 

Int.  777. — When  was  the  fort  at  Umpqua  burned  down? 

Ans. — I  do  not  remember.  I  was  not  in  the  country  when  it 
was  burned  down. 

Int.'llS. — Did  the  Company  ever  rebuild  it? 

Ans. — Not  that  I  know  of. 

Int.  779.— Why  didn't  they  rebuild  it?  , 

Ans. — I  cannot  say? 

Int.  780. — When  did  they  first  lease  their  claim  ? 

Ans, — When  I  returned  to  the  country,  in  September,  1853; 
it  was  then  leased  to  Mr.  Chapman. 

Int.  781. — When  did  the  Company  cease  to  lease  it? 

Ans. — I  do  not  know;  so  far  as  I  remember,  it  remained 
leased  up  to  1858,  when  I  left  Vancouver. 


a 

i] 


r( 


tl 


fo 


ex 


th 


CI 


po< 

to 
the 


161 


Int.  782. — At  what  rent  was  it  leased? 

Arts. — I  really  don't  remember. 

Int.  783. — Will  not  the  Company's  books  show  ? 

An%. — There  must  be  a  record  of  the  lease  somewhere. 

Int.  784. — Was  the  post  occupied  by  the  Company  at  the 
time  it  was  burned? 

Ans. — So  far  as  I  know,  it  was. 

Int.  785. — Will  the  books  kept  at  Vancouver  show  the 
annual  returns  from  this  post  iip  to  the  time  it  was  burned? 

An%. — I  suppose  they  will,  though  I  do  not  know  anything 
about  it  myself.  The  books  of  the  post  may  have  been  burnt 
in  the  fire  for  all  that  I  know. 

Int.  786. — Was  not  this  post  a  distance  of  20  or  30  miles 
from  the  road  from  Oregon  to  California. 

Ans. — I  cannot  say  what  distance  it  was  from  the  direct 
road;  I  do  not  know. 

Int.  787. — How  many  employes  did  the  Company  keep  at 
the  post? 

Ans. — I  have  forgotten  now. 

Int.  788. — Did  the  Company  raise  any  produce  at  the  post 
for  sale  ? 

Ans. — As  far  as  I  know,  they  had  always  farm  produce  in 
excess  of  what  was  required  for  the  wants  of  the  post. 

Int.  789. — Has  the  Company  ever  been  interfered  with  in 
the  occupation  of  their  claim  at  Umpqua? 

Ans. — Not  that  I  know  of. 

Int.  790. — How  many  buildings  did  the  Company  have  at 
Champoeg,  in  1846? 

Ans. — I  cannot  say. 

/n<.  791. — Did  they  have  any? 

Ans. — They  had  buildings  there. 
,     7n<.  792.— Did  they  build  any  after  1846? 

Ans. — Not  that  I  know  of. 

Int.  793. — Were  not  all  the  Company's  buildings  at  Cham- 
poeg washed  away  by  a  high  flood *of  the  Willamette  river? 

Ans. — I  have  heard  something  about  it,  but  I  have  not  been 
to  Champoeg  for  many  years,  so  that  I  do  not  know  whether 
they  were  all  washed  off  or  not. 
11  B 


\ 


1 


^i 


.90^-' 


162 


Int.  794. — How  much  land  did  the  Company  have  enclosed 
there  ? 

An$. — I  cannot  say. 

Int.  796. — What  was  it  worth  ? 

An». — I  do  not  know. 

Int.  796. — Was  it  not  swept  away  by  the  flood? 

Ant. — Not  that  I  know  of. 

Int.  797. — Did  the  Company  ever  purchase  any  town-lots 
of  American  settlers  at  Champoeg? 

Ans. — I  cannot  be  very  positive  about  it.  The  impression 
on  my  mind  is  that  the  Company  did  buy  some  land  or  lots 
from  a  settler  or  settlers  there. 

Int.  798. — Had  the  Company's  officers  authority  to  buy  land 
for  the  Company? 

Ans. — I  do  not  know  whether  they  had  authority  or  not. 

Int.  799. — Did  you  ever  consider  that  you  had  any  such 
authority,  while  at  Vancouver? 

Ans. — I  do  not  remember  that  the  question  of  buying  lands, 
for  the  Company  ever  arose  while  I  was  at  Vancouver. 

Int.  800. — Did  you  ever  have  authority  to  sell  lands  for  the 
Company? 

Ans. — Not  that  I  remember  of. 

Int.  801. — Must  not  these  lands  at  Champoeg,  if  bought  at 
all  for  the  Company,  have  been  bought  after  1846,  and  for 
other  purposes  than  for  the  use  of  the  Company's  business? 

Ann. — The  lands  or  lots  at  Champoeg  were  bought  previous 
to  1846,  for  the  reason  that  the  settlers  in  Willamette  valley 
were  indebted  to  the  Company  for  advances  made  them,  for 
which  they  had  agreed  to  pay  in  wheat.  The  object  of  having 
these  lands  and  the  buildings  there  was  because  Champoeg  was 
a  shipping  point  on  the  Willamette  river,  from  whence  the 
wheat  collected  from  the  settlers  was  sent  down  to  Fort  Van- 
couver in  boats. 

Int.  802. — Have  the  Company  ever  been  interfered  with 
in  the  occupation  of  their  land  at  Champoeg  ? 

Ans. — Not  that  I  know  of. 

Int.  808.— When  was  Fort  Walla  Walla  built? 

Ans. — I  really  do  not  know. 


163 


A 


a 


Int.  804. — Was  it  not  built  by  the  Northwest  Company  pre- 
vious to  1818  ? 

Ans. — The  Northwest  Company  first  built  thero  in  1818. 

Int.  805. — Did  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  ever  erect  any 
buildings  there? 

Ans. — So  far  as  I  recollect,  the  Company  must  have  built 
there,  because  the  place  had  been  burned  down. 

Int.  806. — Do  you  know  that  the  Company  ever  built  any- 
thing there  after  1839  ? 

Ans. — Yes;  I  know  it  in  this  way;  that  I  was  at  Fort  Walla- 
Walla  in  1839  and  1840,  and  again  in  1844,  and  there  was 
quite  a  different  establishment  therein  1844  to  what  there  had 
been  in  1839  and  1840. 

Int.  807. — Do  you  know  what  the  buildings  at  this  post 
cost? 

Ans. — I  do  not  know. 

Int.  808. — Did  you  ever  estimate  the  cost  of  the  Company's 
buildings  at  Forts  George,  Pillar  Rock,  Umpqua,  and  Walla- 
Walla? 

Ans. — Not  that  I  know  of. 

Int.  809. — From  whence  did  the  Company's  counsel  arrive 
at  the  cost  of  these  posts? 

Ans. — I  cannot  say. 

Int.  810. — Could  they  have  had  any  other  authority  than 
the  books  (>f  the  Company? 

Ans. — I  do  not  know  that  the  books  of  the  Company  had 
anything  to  do  with  it.     I  presume  they  had  other  authority. 

Int.  811. — What  do  you  presume  it  was? 

Ans. — It  is  a  general  idea  on  my  part,  presuming  that  they 
had  other  authority. 

Int.  812. — What  is  your  general  idea  that  it  was? 

Ans. — They  may  have  had  notes,  &c. 

Int.  813. — Where  could  they  have  got  these  notes,  &c. 

Ans. — I  cannot  say. 

Int.  814. — Was  any  oflicer  of  the  Company  able  to  give  such 
to  them  better  than  you  ? 

Ans. — It  is  likely  enough,  though  I  cannot  say  with  whom, 
they  had  communication. 


i  „i 


' 


i 


164 


Int.  815. — How  much  land  did  the  Company  claim  at  Walla- 
Walla  ? 

Ans. — I  cannot  say. 

Int.  816. — Was  not  the  land  about  Walla- Walla  generally 
very  poor  and  sandy  ?  \ 

Ans. — That  is  my  recollection  of  it. 

Int.  817. — Did  the  Company  over  have  any  definite  claim 
there  other  than  the  land  actually  enclosed? 

Ans. — I  do  not  know  what  they  claimed  there. 

Int.  818. — How  much  land  did  they  have  enclosed? 

Ans. — I  cannot  say. 

Int.  819. — Do  you  know  that  they  had  a  j  much  as  ten  acres  ? 

Ans. — I  know  nothing  about  it. 

Int.  820. — What  was  the  enclosed  land  worth  per  acre  to 
the  Company  in  1846  ? 

Ans. — I  cannot  say. 

Int.  821. — How  extensive  a  tract  of  land  "surrounding  the 
fort  "  would  have  been  worth  $10,000  to  the  Company  in  1846? 

Ans. — I  am  unable  to  say. 

Int.  822. — How  much  was  paid  for  Fort  Hall,  in  1846  or 
1847,  when,  as  you  say,  in  your  answer  to  interrogatory  8 
of  the  direct  examination,  it  was  purchased  of  an  American 
trading  company  ? 

Ans. — I  was  not  in  the  country  at  the  time,  and,  if  I  ever 
knew,  have  forgotten  how  much  was  paid  for  the  establishment. 
The  American  company,  who  built  the  place,  traded  and  traf- 
ficked there  until  they  had  lost  more  money  than  they  could 
afford,  and  made  up  their  minds  to  leave.  They  made  an  offer 
of  the  post,  with  some  goods  which  they  had  on  hand,  to  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company,  at  a  certain  figure,  which  was  agreed 
upon.  But  it  does  not  follow  that  the  sum  paid  by  the  Com- 
pany for  the  fort  repaid  the  original  proprietors  what  it  cost 
to  build  it,  nor  would  be  anything  like  the  value  of  the  fort. 
Had  that  company  of  traders  been  carrying  on  a  profitable 
business,  the  chances  are  they  would  not  have  sold  the  place 
at  all. 

Int.  823. — Will  not  the  Company's  books  show  what  the  fort 
cost? 


165 


fort 


Ans. — They  may  do  so ;  I  cannot  say. 

Int.  824. — Do  you  know  how  much  land  was  enclosed  and 
cultivated  there,  or  occupied  for  pasturage  ? 

Ans. — I  do  not  know  ;  I  have  no  knowledge  on  these  points. 

Int.  825. — Do  you  know  how  much  the  Company  claimed 
there  ? 

Ans.  —I  do  not  know. 

Int.  826. — Do  you  know  how  much  the  post  at  Boise  cost 
the  Company? 

Ans. — I  do  not  know  what  it  cost  to  build  the  place. 

Int.  827. — As  this  place  was  built  by  the  Company  about 
the  year  1835,  will  not  the  books  of  the  Company  show  what 
money  was  spent  there  that  year  ?  '' 

Ans. — The  general  accounts  of  the  Company  will  not  show 
it.  The  profits  of  the  post  at  Boise  for  that  year  would  be, 
of  course,  affected  by  this  outlay. 

Int.  828. — Do  you  know  how  much  land  the  Company 
claimed  or  claim  about  Boise  ? 

Ana. — I  do  not. 

Int.  829. — Do  you  know  how  much  they  used  and  occupied? 

Ans. — I  do  not. 

Int.  830. — Was  not  Fort  Okanagan  one  of  the  ]  jsts  which 
was  transferred  to  tho-  Hudson's  Bay  Company  by  the  North- 
west Company,  for  which  no  money  was  paid  ? 

Ans. — It  was  one  of  those  establishments  that  came  into 
the  business  that  way ;  but  when  I  first  saw  Okanagan,  in 
1839,  the  fort  was  a  new  one,  the  old  establishment  having 
served  its  time. 

Int.  831. — When  was  it  rebuilt  ? 

Ans. — Probably  about  1839. 

Int.  832. — Will  not  the  Company's  books  show  the  cost  of 
this  building  in  the  same  way  that  you  say  they  will  show  the 
cost  of  Fort  Boise  ? 

Ans. — The  general  accounts  of  -the  Company  will  not  show 
it ;  but  the  profits  and  loss  account  of  the  post  at  Okanagan 
will  be  affected  by  the  outlay. 

Int.  833. — How  much  land  does  the  Company  claim  there.  ? 
Ans. — I  do  not  know. 


:  i' 


166 

Int.  834. — How  much  was  used,  occupied,  and  cultivated  by 
the  Company  ? 

Ans. — I  do  not  know. 

Int.  835. — What  was  land  that  could  bo  cultivated  there 
worth  per  acre  in  1846  ?  \ 

Ans. — I  could  not  say. 

Int.  836.— What  is  it  worth  now  ?  *  -. 

Ans. — I  cannot  say. 

Int.  837. — IIow  many  buildings  were  at  the  fort  when  you 
were  there  last? 

Ans. — I  cannot  say ;  it  was  a  fort  enclosed  witl»  pickets. 

Int.  838. — Has  the  Company  ever  been  disturbed  in  their 
occupation  of  Okanagan  ? 

An». — Not  that  I  know  of. 

Int.  839. — How  far  distant  from  this  post'is  the  nearest  set- 
tlement ? 

Ans. — I  do  not  know  of  any  settlement  within  a  considera- 
ble distance. 

Examination  Resumed,  April  9th. 

Int,  840. — When  did  the  Company  cease  to  occupy  Okan- 
agan ? 

Ans. — I  do  not  know. 
.     Int.  841. — Did  the  Company  occupy  it  in  1854? 

Ans. — I  believe  so. 
•     Int.  842. — Why  did  they  cease  to  occupy  it? 

Ans. — Up  to  the  time  I  left  Fort  Vancouver,  in  1858,  the 
place  was  occupied.  I  have  little  or  no  knowledge  of  what 
took  place  at  the  post  since. 

Int.  843. — How  many  men  did  the  Company  employ  at  the 
post  in  1858,  or  at  any  other  time  ? 

Ans. — I  could  not  say  now. 

Int.  844. — Where  were  the  returns  of  Fort  Okanagan  made 
up  to  1858,  or  were  there  returns? 

Ans. — Between  the  years  of  1839  and  1846,  Fort  Okana- 
gan was  a  post  in  what  was  known  as  the  Thomson  river 
district,  and  the  returns  were  made  to  Fort  Vancouver.  When 


U 


167 


ir 


t- 


a- 


in- 


he 

at 

he 

de 

la- 
rer 
en 


I  returned  to  Fort  Vancouver,  in  18/58,  Fort  Okunagan  was  a 
post  in  the  district  of  Colvile,  and  continued  so  until  1858, 
when  I  left.  The  accounts  of  the  post  would  be  included  with 
the  accounts  of  Fort  CoW ilc.  During  the  years  of  1856,  1857, 
and  1858,  the  furs  from  Okanagan,  with  those  of  Kootaiiay, 
Flat-Heads  and  Fort  Colvile,  were  taken  out  overland  to  Fra- 
zer  river,  at  Fort  Hope,  and  thence  sent  on  to  Fort  Victo- 
ria, on  Vancouver's  Island. 

Int.  845. — How  were  the  supplies  sent  to  these  posts  during 
the  same  years? 

Arts. — I  sent  two  boat  loads  of  goods  up  to  Fort  Colvile  in 
the  summer  of  1856,  from  Fort  Vancouver.  But  the  bulk  of 
the  supplies  for  that  year,  as  also  for  the  following  ones  of 
1857  and  1858,  wore  sent  in  to  Fort  Colvile  from  Victoria, 
Vancouver  Island,  by  the  way  of  Fort  Hope,  on  Frazer's 
river,  and  from  Colvile  were  distributed  to  the  other  posts. 

Int.  846. — Is  Fort  Okanagan  still  in  possession  of  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company? 

Ana. — I  cannot  say  of  my  own  knowledge  whether  it  is  or 
not. 

Int.  847.— Has  Fort  Colvile  been  rebuilt  since  1825? 

Ans. — Yes,  I  should  say  it  had  been. 

Int.  848.— When  ? 

An8. — That  I  do  not  know.  My  visits  to  Colvile  generally 
were  up  to  the  year  1845,  and  then  again  in  the  autumn  of 
1861,  at  which  time  the  establishment  was  quite  dififerent  to 
what  it  was  at  my  previous  visits  there. 

Int.  849. — What  was  the  value  of  the  post,  including  land 
and  buildings,  in  1846? 

Ans. — I  could  not  say. 

Int.  850.— What  was  its  value  in  1861  ? 

Ana. — I  could  not  say. 

Int.  851. — What  was  the  cost  of  the  buildings  there  in  1846 
and  1861? 

Ana. — I  cannot  say. 

Int.  852. — How  much  land  was  cultivated  there  in  1846  or 
in  1861 ? 

Ana. — I  cannot  say. 


168 


Int.  853. — How  much  was  used  and  occupied  for  pasturage 
in  1846  or  1861? 

Ans. — I  do  not  know. 

Int.  854. — State  all  you  know  about  the  extent  and  value 
of  the  White  Mv''  farm,  with  its  buildings. 

Ans. — I  cannot  say  what  he  extent  of  the  White  Mud  farm 
was,  nor  do  I  know  the  value  of  the  buildings  there. 

Int.  855. — Have  the  Company  ever  been  disturbed  in  the 
occupation  of  their  post  at  Colvile? 

Ans. — Not  that  I  know  of. 

Int.  856. — Have  the  Company  any  distinct  land  claim 
there  ? 

Ans. — I supposf  thpy  have;  but  I  have  no  knowledge  of  its 
extent. 

Int.  857. — How  near  is  thr  post  to  any  settlements? 

Ans. — When  I  was  there,  in  the  autumn  of  1861,  there  was 
quite  a  settlement  in  the  Colvile  valley,  which  commenced  less 
than  three  miles  from  the  fort.  This  settlement  ran  back  for 
a  considerable  distance,  and  about  twenty  miles  from  Colvile 
there  was  a  fort  garrisoned  by  United  States  troops,  under 
the  command  of  Major  Iiugenbeel,  then  of  the  9th  infantry. 
In  the  neighborhood  of  the  garrison  I  think  there  was  a  sort 
of  town'  known  as  Pinkneyville.  At  that  time,  on  the  Columbia 
river  itself,  there  was  much  excitement  about  gold  on  the  upper 
waters  of  the  river,  and  a  great  many  miners  were  passing  up 
the  river  from  Colvile. 

Int.  858. — Was  the  Company's  post  at  Colvile  worth  more 
to  thorn  in  1846  or  in  1861  ? 

Ans. — I  really  could  not  say. 

Int.  859. — What  made  it  more  valuable  in  i846  than  in 
1861? 

Ans. — I  do  not  know  that  it  was  more  valuable  then  than  in 
1861. 

Int.  860.  —  What  made  it  more  valuable  in  1861  than  in 
1846? 

Ans. — I  do  not  know  that  it  was  more  valuable  then. 

Int.  861. — Have  you  ever  been  at  Kootanay  or  the  Flat- 
Heads  ? 


169 

Ans. — I  have  never  been  at  either  place. 

Int.  862. — Do  you  know  what  the  cost  of  tho  Company's 
buildings  at  those  places  wa»,  or  when  thuy  wore  bnilt,  or 
what  they  were  worth  in  1846,  or  what  thc;y  arc  worth  now, 
or  how  much  land  the  Company  claimed  or  occupied  there  in 
1846,  or  claim  there  now  ? 

Ans. — I  do  not  know  when  the  buildings  at  Kootanny  and 
the  Flat-Heads  were  erected,  nor  what  they  co»t ;  neither  do 
I  know  their  value  in  1846,  or  at  the  present  moment ;  neither 
do  I  know  the  extent  of  land  claimed  at  those  posts,  either 
in  1846  nor  just  now. 

Int.  863. — Have  th*^  Comp  ii'v  I'ver  been  disturbed  in  ihe 
occupation  of  these  posts  ? 

Ans. — Not  that  I  know  of. 

Int.  864. — Do  the  Company  still  occupy  these  posts? 

Ans. — The  post  at  tlio  Flat-Heads  is  occupied ;  I  do  not 
know  whether  that  at  Kootanay  is  or  not. 

Int.  865. — Did  you  ever  give  an  estirnute  to  the  routiscl  of 
the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  in  this  case  of  tlie  <!Ost  iiiid  value, 
or  of  either  the  cost  or  value,  of  tlie  (Jompany's  post  at  Fort 
George,  Chinook,  Umpqua,  Walla-Walla,  IJoisfe,  Colvile,  and 
Kootanay  ? 

Ans. — Not  that  I  remember  of. 

Int.  866. — Can  you  give  such  an  estimate  now? 

Ans. — I  could  not. 

Int.  867. — Do  you,  as  agent  of  the  Hudson's  l»!iy  Com- 
pany in  this  case,  or  in  any  other  capacity,  k^ow  from  what 
sources  counsel  of  that  Company  arrived  at  the  cost  and  value 
of  thi  pof  s  enumerated  in  the  last  question,  which  cost  and 
valuy  they  have  set  forth  in  their  memorial  ? 

Ans. — I  really  cannot  say  how  they  arrived  at  it. 

Int.  868. — Do  you  know  of  any  sources  from  which  they 
could  ariive  at  the  cost  of  these  posts,  other  than  from  the 
books  of  the  Company  ? 

Ans. — I  do  not  remember  the  books  of  the  ('ompany  at  all 
in  the  matter,  and  the  books  would  not  show  the  cost,  I  do 
not  know  what  sources  thev  drew  their  information  from.     I 


11 


170 


recollect,  also,  that  they  had  notes  and  memoranda;  where 
they  came  from  I  never  asked. 

Int.  869. — Did  not  you  yourBelf  furnish  them  with  notes 
and  memoranda? 

Ans. — Not  on  these  points,  certainly. 

Int.  870. — On  what  points  did  you  furnish  them? 

Ans. — I  have  really  forgotten  now ;  something  about  Fort 
Vancouver,  I  think. 

Int.  871. — Will  you  now  state,  as  exactly  as  you  can,  what 
bookp  of  the  Company,  and  what  accounts  kept  by  the  Com- 
pany will  show,  directly  or  indirectly,  the  cost  of  the  buildings 
at  the  Company's  posts? 

Ans. — At  this  distance  of  time,  I  really  do  not  remember 
what  the  books  were.  As  I  understand  it,  the  general  accounts 
do  not  show  such  details.  As  to  the  other  books,  Avhich  I  have 
referred  to  in  my  testimony  as  being  formerly  at  Fort  Van- 
couver, showing  such  disbursements,  it  is  so  long  since  I  have 
seen  them  that  I  scarcely  remember  anything  about  them, 
except  that  there  were  such  books  at  one  time ;  therefore  I 
cannot  give  any  details  about  them. 

Ini.  872. — State  exactly  what  you  mean  by  general  ac- 
counts. 

Ans.^—T\\e  general  accounts  were  those  which  were  kept  in 
accordance  with  the  regulations  of  the  Company,  in  order  to 
.arrive  at  the  result  of  the  trade  in  the  country  each  year, 
copies  of  which  were  sent  to  York  Factory  or  to  London. 
Everything  was  detailed  in  the  general  accounts  in  accord- 
ance with  the  regulations  of  the  Company.  The  details  formed 
quite  a  lot  of  books,  copies  of  which  were  sent  away  every 
year. 

Int.  873. — Did  the  profit  and  loss  of'-ount  form  a  part  of 
this  general  account  ? 

Ans. — So  far  as  I  remember,  there  was  a  general  profit 
and  loss  account  each  year,  as  well  as  one  of  each  district  or 
post,  as  the  case  might  be,  which  formed  part  of  the  general 
accounts.  If  I  recollect  right,  there  was  a  book  called  the 
account  current  book,  in  which  were  entered  the  accounts  of 
each  post  or  district,  showing  the  result  of  the  business  for 


hhmt'ikJ'-' 


i[  nil  .iliiiWW 


'^m 


171 

the  year  at  each,  with  the  profit  and  loss  account,  which 
showed  the  result  on  the  trade  for  the  year,  according  as  the 
Company's  books  were  kept.  There  wag  generally  a  book  for 
this  purpose  each  year ;  but  I  have  some  recollection  of  a 
book  in  which,  for  two  or  three  years  in  succession,  the 
accounts  current  were  kept  or  entered. 

Int.  874. — Will  these  books  show  the  amount  of  furs  taken 
or  bought  by  the  Company  at  their  various  posts,  ai.d  their 
value  ? 

Arts. — My  recollection  is  that  the  books  show  such  entries 
in  detail. 

Int.  875. — Did  not  the  number  of  furs  taken  at  various 
posts  diminish  after  the  year  1846? 

Ans. — I  do  not  know  that  they  did  so  immediately,  but  they 
eventually  Jind  gradually  did  so. 

Int.  876. — Has  not  the  price  of  the  various  furs,  partic- 
ularly of  beaver,  very  much  diminished  since  1846,  and  even 
before  ? 

Ans. — My  recollection  is,  that  beaver  fell  very  much  in 
price  about  that  time,  and  continued  very  low  ;  but  J.  now  con- 
sider it  to  be  on  the  rise  again,  as  of  late  years  it  has  been 
selling  wholesale  at  from  ^2  to  ^3  a  skin,  according  to  size. 
Beaver,  in  1840  and  1841,  was  worth  ^8  a  skin.  With  respect 
to  the  other  kinds  of  furs,  whatever  their  value  may  have  been 
in  1846,  they  are  all  very  high  priced  now,  although  I  cannot 
give  quotations. 

Int.  877. — Wao  not  the  country  south  of  49°  peculiarly  a 
beaver  country  ? 

Ans. — Yes ;  I  should  say  so.  It  was  a  good  country  for 
land  otters,  also  beai's ;  and,  so  far  as  I  recollect,  there  was 
quite  a  variety  of  other  furs,  which  always  sold  well. 

Inf.  87M. — Had  not,  previous  to  the  treaty  of  1846,  the  In- 
dian population  of  the  Lower  Columbi.i  been  swept  away  by 
epidenii-?  disease,  and  had  not  the  Indian  population  of  other 
parts  of  the  country  south  of  49°  sensibly  diminished? 

Ans. — I  ha;ve  no  personal  knowledge  of  such  details.  At 
Fort  Vancouver,  where  I  was  principally  resiling,  I  did  not 
perceive  any  falling  off  of  the  nu^aber  of  Indians  between 


)      i 


'!'..*! 


i-\ 


t 


^  J 


172 

1839  and  1846.  Lower  down,  towards  the  mouth  of  the  river, 
whatever  decrease  had  iaken  nlacy  among  them  must  have 
happened  lonjT  before  ray  time,  as  I  never  saw  many  Indians 
in  that  locality.  With  respect  to  the  Indians  of  the  interior 
of  the  Columbia,  I  never  heard  of  any  mortality  amongst 
them,  neither  do  I  think  there  was  any  falling  off  in  their 
number,  up  to  184C,  more  than  what  could  have  been  expected 
among  such  a  population. 

Examination  Resumed,  April  10. 


Int.  879. — Prior  to  the  order  of  Gov.  Stevens,  issued  about 
the  1st  of  Ja.nuary,  1854,  did  not  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company 
have  the  same  opportunities  for  trade  with  the  Indians  south 
of  the  forty-ninth  parallel,  and  east  of  the  Cascade  Moun- 
tains, as  in  1846? 

Ans. — They  may  have  had,  but  there  was  more  or  less  in- 
terference with  their  trade  with  the  Indians  previous  to  1854. 
Thus,  j-tfter  the  war  with  the  Indians,  who  murdered  the  late 
Dr.  Whitman  and  destroyed  his  mission  at  Waiilatpu,  trade 
in  the  neighborhood  of  Walla-Walla  was  pretty  much  at  a 
f,tand-still  for  a  long  period  afterwards.  In  like  manner  the 
order  to  Dr.  Dart  from  Washington  was  known  in  the  coun- 
try. I  do  not  now  remember  of  any  other  interference  with 
the  Company's  trade  with  the  Indians,  to  the  date  of  Governor 
Stevens'  order. 

Int.  880. — Had  not  the  fur  trade  with  these  Ind  ans  ceased 
to  be  profitable  in  1854  ? 

Ans. — I  hardly  remember;  I  have  not  the  books  here. 
Certainly,  at  some  places  it  was  profitable.  I  could  not  say 
more  without  seeing  the  books. 

Int.  881. — Had  not  the  Company,  before  1854,  begun  to 
transfer  the  principal  seat  of  their  business  from  Vancouver 
to  Victoria  ? 

Ans. — I  believe  they  had. 

Int.  882. — When  did  the  Company  first  explore  the  cmiuiry 
north  of  the  49th  parallel  to  find  a  route  from  Vancouver 
Island  and  the  lower  Eraser  river  into  the  interior  ? 


...  Mm  -A'  **:^  .v.*  >Mkv  (Itk- 


'j^'Uim^-ii^r-*)tm^<»*' 


173 


Ans. — I  scarcely  remember ;  I  think  I  must  have  been  at 
the  Sandwich  Islands  when  I  first  heard  of  this,  probably 
some  time  in  the  year  1847. 

Int.  883. — In  what  year  did  the  Company  abandon  the  Co- 
lumbia river  as  a  means  of  communication? 

Ana. — With  respect  to  the  Company  posts  and  establish- 
ments north  of  the  49th  parallel,  and  now  in  British  Columbia, 
I  am  unable  to  say  in  what  year  the  Company  stopped  sending 
in  supplies  for  their  trade  by  the  way  of  the  Columbia  river, 
as  I  was  then  at  the  Sandwich  Islands.  When  I  returned  to 
Fort  Vancouver,  in  the  autumn  of  1853,  the  Company  made 
use  of  the  Columbia  river  for  the  supply  of  their  posts  south 
of  the  49th  parallel,  in  the  interior  of  the  country.  This 
finally  ceased,  as  far  as  I  know,  in  18oG,  in  consequence  of 
the  war  then  going  on  among  the  Indians.  I  did  not  consider 
the  route  safe  for  life  or  property,  and  therefore  had  recourse 
to  Fort  Victoria,  as  a  depot  for  the  supply  of  the  posts  still 
left  to  the  Company,  as  already  stated  in  my  testimony. 

Int.  884. — Was  the  Columbia  river  ever  again  used  as  a 
means  of  communication  with  the  Compaiiy's  posts  south  of 
the  49th  parallel  ? 

An8. — I  left  Fort  Vancouver  in  1858,  and  am  unable  to  say 
whether  the  Company  made  use  of  it  or  not,  after  that  year. 
Int.  885. — Had   the   Company  ever   been   deprived  of,   ^r 
abridged  in  the  use  of,  the  portages  of  the  Coluniltia  river  ? 
Ans. — Not  that  I  remember  of. 
Int.  880. — Are  they  not  free  to  the  Company  now  ? 
Ans. — I  really  do  not  know  whether  they  are  or  not. 
Int.  887. — lias  the  Company  ever  used  or  attempted  to  use 
the  Columbia  river  above  Fort  Vancouver  for  any  purposes 
since  1854? 

Ans. — 1  sent  boats  up  there  in  185G  myself. 
Int.  888. — Do  you  know  that  the  Compiuiy  sent  any  other 
boats  up  the  river,  or  used  it  in  any  otlior  Avay,  or  attempted  ti) 
use  it  ill  any  other  way  after  1'854? 
Ans. — I  do  not  now  remember. 
Int.  889. — Dill  not  the  Company,  subsetiuent  to  1853,  erect 


I 


;^ 


T 


'I 


i! 


174 

a  new  post  on  the  Columbia  river,  just  above  the  forty-ninth 
parallel,  called  Fort  Shepherd  ? 

(Objected  to  by  Mr.  Lander,  for  irrelevancy.) 

Aiis. — I  believe  the  Company  did  so. 

Int.  890. — Were  yoa  ever  at  the  post,  and  when? 

Ans. — I  was  at  the  post  in  the  autumn  of  1861. 

Int.  891. — What  was  its  cost  ? 

Ana. — I  do  not  know  its  cost  or  value. 

Int.  892. — Were  not  the  Company's  buildings  at  this  post 
better  than  those  at  Col  vile? 

Ans. — The/  may  be  ;  I  do  not  know  that  they  are.  y 

Int.  893.— ■^llave  the  Company  ever  used  Fort  Shepherd  a^ 
a  trading-post:      .  / 

Ans. — There  Avas  somebody  in  charge  of  it  when  I/was 
there  ;  what  was  doing  there  I  do  not  remember  ;  some  nfiiners 
were  about  tiiere. 

Int.  894. — Wi  s  there  more  than  one  man  there,  in  tne  Com- 
pany's service,  in  1801,  Avhen  jou  were  thefe? 

Ajis. — I  do  not  know;  I  never  inquired  ;  there  were  people 
about;  wliethor  they  were  in  the  Company's  .service  I  do  not 
know. 

Int.  !^9r). — Why  was  this  post  not  used  as  a  trading-post  for 
furs  with  th"  I.idians? 

Ann. — I  do  T'ot  know,  that  they  did  not  trade  with  the 
Indians  at  Fort  Shopliord.  I  saw  no  Indians  there  while  I 
was  tliorr.     I  was  tluTo  brt  a  short  time. 

Int.  H\H). — Toll  all  you  know  about  the  value  of  Fort  Lang- 
ley,  a  |H)st  north  of  the  forty-ninth  parallel,  in  itself  and  as  a 
trading-post  V 

Ann. — My  own  personal  knowledge  is  something  very  lim- 
ited indoetl.  I  was  tluM'e  some  time  in  the  autumn  of  1801,  for 
about  a  couple  of  days.  It  rained  so  heavily  wliile  I  was 
there,  1  scarcely  ever  got  out,  so  that  I  scarcely  remember 
what  the  place  looks  like,  either  inside  or  out,  except  that  it 
had  pickets  round  it.  I  know  nothing  of  the  value  of  the 
binMinus,  hut  i  believe  tho  trade  with  the  Indians  is  consider- 
able, *lihough  I  really  know  but  little  about  it.     The  gentlc- 


\i 


175 

man  in  charge  was  Mr.  Newton  ;  I  do  not  remember  whether 
he  had  an  assistant  or  not. 

Int.  897. — Had  not  the  trade  of  nearly  all  the  Company's 
posts  in  British  Columbia  greatly  fallen  off  previous  to  the 
discovery  of  gold  at  Frazer's  river,  in  1858? 

Ans. — The  impression  on  my  mind  is  quite  contrary.  I 
have  no  memoranda  to  refer  to  here.  My  recollection  of  the 
trade  is  that  it  was  very  good  that  year  and  for  some  time 
previous. 

(All  questions  from  890  to  897,  inclusive,  objected  to  as 
'irrelevant.)        ♦ 
*  Int.  898. — In';  your  answer  to  "interrogator.y  16"  of  your 
direct-examination,  you  speak  of  roads  made  bythe  Company; 
was^lie  road  from  Cowlitz  to  Nisqually  opened  by  the  Com- 
pany'»s  a  wagon-road  or  a  pack-road  ? 

Ans*^—1  supposQ  it  was  more  of  a  pack-trail  than  a  road. 

Int.  899. — Did  the  Company  do  anything  more  than  im- 
prove the  travelleU  Indian  trail  between  these  places? 

An». — Yes;  they  did  between  the  Cowlitz  and  the  Skoo- 
kum  Chuck,  as  they  tried  a  variety  of  trails  before  tlicv  finally 
decided  upon  the  trail  or  road  they  use<l  and  bridged  it. 

Int.  900. — How  many  bridges  did  the  Company  mako  be- 
tween these  two  places  ? 

Ans. — I  could  not  say;  there  was  a  good  deal  of  it  done  on 
the  road. 

Int.  901. — Could  not  all  the  work  on  this  road  have  been 
done  for  $2,000  or  less  ? 

Aii.^. — I  should  say  not ;  it  is  a  very  hard  piece  of  road  in 
the  winter  months. 

liil.  902. — How  much  did  it  cost? 

AuH. — I  really  could  not  say. 

////.  908. — Was  not  tlie  land  route  between  Oregon  and 
Calitornia  also  an  establislied  Indian  route? 

>l/'v. — I  think  not.  The  Indians,  in  tho.se  early  days,  could 
not  tvavel  about  for  fear  of  each  .other. 

Iiii.  904. — Did  not  all  the  other  routes  or  roads  made  by 
the  (Company,  except  those  at  Vancouver,  follow  Indian 
trails  ? 


/.« 


176 

Ans. — I  do  not  know  that  they  did. 

Int.  905, — Were  any  of  the  Company's  roads,  except  those 
at  Vancouver,  and  immediately  around  8on.e  other  posts,  any- 
thing but  pack-trails  ? 

Ans. — The  clearing  of  the  road  at  the  Cascade  portage  was 
something  very  unlike  an  Indian  trail ;  in  fact,  it  was  a  sort 
of  wagon  road.     The  others  were  probably  pack-trails. 

Int.  906. — Were  any  of  the  bridges  made  by  the  Company 
on  these  pack-trails  anything  more  than  temporary  structures, 
which  were  liable  to  be  washed  away  every  year  ? 

Ans. — The  bridges  were  more  useful  than  ornamental,  sub- 
ject, no  doubt,  to  be  washed  away  at  times,  and  they  had  to 
be  replaced  by  others. 

Int.  907. — After  the  Company  ceased  to  have  the  exclusive 
control  of  the  Indian  trade  in  the  Oregon  country,  did  they 
not  use  all  the  means  in  their  power  to  break  down  the  Ameri- 
can traders  and  free  trappers  ?  ' 

Ans. — Not  that  I  know  of. 

Int.  908. — Did  they  not  seek  to  drive  them  out  of  the  fur 
trade? 

Alls. — Not  to  my  knowledge,  certainly. 

Int.  909. — Were  not  these  American  traders  and  free  trap- 
pers injurious  to  the  Company's  business? 

Ans. — Not  as  I  knew  of. 

Int.  910. — Did  thoy  help  the  Company's  business? 

Ans, — 1  sup|)ose  they  neither  helped  it  or  injured  it,  so  far 
as  I  knew.  When  such  parties  had  furs  to  sell,  they  invaria- 
bly niiiile  an  oft'er  of  them  to  the  Company,  and  I  think  in 
almost  every  instance  the  Company  got  their  furs  at  prices 
agreed  upon. 

Int.  911. — Were  not  these  prices  much  higher  than  those 
at  which  tlusy  bought  similar  furs  from  the  Indians  ? 

Ans. — I  really  could  not  say.  In  purchasing  furs  thus, 
there  was  always  a  margin  left  for  profit. 

Int.  912. — Was  it  not  the  object,  and  was  it  not  a  desire 
of  the  Company's  officers  at  London,  that  the  settlement  of 
the  country,  in  which  their  posts  were  established,  should  be 
discouraged  ? 


177 

Am. — I  was  not  aware  of  it. 

Int.  913. — Was  not  Dr.  McLaughlin  censured  by  the  Cor > 
pany's  directors  for  his  kindness  to  American  immigrants? 

Ans. — He  never  said  so  to  me. 

Int.  914. — Do  you  not  know  that  he  was  ? 

Ans. — I  do  not. 

Int.  915. — What  do  you  know  about  this  matter  ? 

A.n%. — I  know  nothing  about  it  further  than  I  have  said. 
I  do  not  know  that  I  know  anything  about  it. 

Int.  916. — Did  you  ever  own  any  of  the  stock  of  the  Pu- 
get's  Sound  Agricultural  Company  ? 

Ana. — I  believe  I  had  two  shares. 

Int.  917. — When  did  you  come  in  possession  of  them  ? 

(All  questions  in  reference  to  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricul- 
tural Company  objected  to  as  irrelevant.  Counsel  for  United 
States  claims  the  right  to  ask  the  above  questions,  and  others 
hereafter,  in  order  to  show  the  relations  between  the  Hud- 
son's Bay  Company  and  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Com- 
pany.) 

Ans. — Some  time,  I  think,  in  the  year  1839  or  1840. 

Int.  918. — Do  you  own  them  now  ? 

Ans. — I  think  so. 

Int.  919. — What  is  their  par  value  ? 

Ans. — I  do  not  know.  I  have  no  papers  here  to  refer  to. 
I  recollect  nothing  about  them,  except  the  fact  that  I  have 
the  two  shares. 

Int.  920. — How  much  have  you  ever  paid  on  them? 

Ans. — I  think  I  paid  .£10  a  share. 

Int.  921. — Did  you  pay  that  in  the  beginning  ?  "    ■ 

Ans. — I  think  so.     I  cannot  say. 

Int.  922. — Have  you  paid  anything  on  them  since  ? 

Ans. — I  do  not  remember  to  have  done  so. 

Int.  923. — Have  you  been  paid  any  dividends  upon  them  ? 

Ans. — I  think  so. 

Int.  924. — When  was  your  first  dividend,  and  what  was  it  ? 

Ans. — I  do  not  recollect.    It  was  some  time  ago. 

Int.  925. — When  was  your  last  dividend,  and  what  was  it  ? 

Ans. — That  I  cannot  answer,  neither  as  to  time  or  amount. 
12B 


/ 


1 


-I 


1 11 


:    (li 


■!' 


178 

Int.  926. — Do  you  remember  when  you  had  any  dividend, 
and  what  it  was  ? 

Ans. — I  had  a  dividend,  but  I  do  not  remember  anything 
more  about  it  than  I  have  said. 

Int.  927. — What  was  the  capital  stock  of  the  Company? 

Am. — I  cannot  say. 

Int.  928. — Did  not  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  give  the 
Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company  permission  to  carry  on 
their  operations,  and  promise  to  support  them  in  carrying  into 
effect  their  measures  ? 

Ans. — I  have  no  knowledge  of  any  such  arrangements. 

Int.  929. — Was  not  Chief  Factor  McLaughlin  authorized 
by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  to  superintend  the  affairs  of 
the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company,  and  did  he  not 
do  so? 

Ans. — I  have  some  recollection  of  the  late  Mr.  McLaugh- 
lin superintending  the  affairs  of  the  Puget's  Sound  Company 
while  at  Fort  Vancouver,  but  who  authorized  him  to  do  so  I 
cannot  say. 

Examination  Hemmed,  April  11. 

Inty  930. — Of  whom  did  you  buy  your  shares  in  the  Puget's 
Sound  Agricultural  Company  ? 

Ans. — My  recollection  of  the  transaction  is  that  they  were 
not  bought  from  any  body,  but  were  two  shares  of  the  original 
stock  of  the  Company,  subscribed  for  by  me. 

Int.  931. — Was  not  opportunity  given  to  all  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company's  officers,  at  Vancouver,  to  subscribe  for  this 
stock  ? 

Ans. — I  think  there  was  some  arrangement  of  the  kind ;  but, 
if  I  remember  right,  there  was  some  limit  as  to  the  number  of 
shares  which  the  different  grades  of  officers  might  take. 

Int.  932. — Did  not  Mr.  McLaughlin  receive  the  subscription 
to  this  stock  ? 

Ans. — He  may  have  done  so,  but  I  am  not  aware  of  it.  ' 

Int.  933. — Were  not  J.  H.  Pelly,  Andrew  Colvile,  and 
George  Simpson,  officers  and  stockholders  in  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company  in  1839  ? 


d 

s 


179 

Ans. — The  late  Sir  John  Henry  Pelly,  and  the  late  Andrew 
Golvile,  Esq.,  deceased,  were  probably  directors  of  the  Hud- 
son's Bay  Company  in  London,  in  1839,  but  I  had  no  personal 
knowledge  of  that  fact,  or  whether  they  owned  stock  in  the 
Oompany  or  not.  The  late  Sir  George  Simpson  I  knew  in 
1889  as  Governor  of  Rupert's  Land,  but  cannot  say  whether 
he  was  a  proprietor  of  Hudson's  Bay  Company's  stock  or  not. 

Int.  934. — Were  not  the  accounts  of  the  Puget's  Sound 
Agricultural  Company  kept  at  Vancouver? 

A718. — I  believe  they  were  kept  there  up  to  the  year  1846. 
I  do  not  know  what  was  done  with  them  afterwards. 

Int.  935. — Were  particular  clerks  assigned  to  the  keeping 
of  these  books,  or  were  they  kept  by  the  same  persons  who 
kept  the  books  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company? 

An8. — I  do  not  remember  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural 
Company  having  any  clerks  at  Vancouver.  The  books  were 
kept  by  the  clerks  in  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company's  office. 
This  is  according  to  my  recollection  of  it. 

Int.  936. — Did  not  all  the  moneys  payable  to  the  officers 
and  employ&s  of  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company 
pass  through  the  office  at  Vancouver? 

Ans. — Probably  such  was  the  case ;  but  I  could  not  be  pos- 
itive of  it  from  memory. 

Int.  937. — Were  not  nearly,  if  not  all  of  the  officers  of  the 
Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company,  formerly  officers  of  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company? 

Ans. — It  is  likely  they  were. 

Int.  938. — Were  not  nearly  all  the  employes  of  the  Puget's 
Sound  Agricultural  Company  formerly  employes  of  the  Hud- 
son's Bay  Company? 

Ans. — Probably  they  had  been.  I  have  a  recollection  of 
shepherds  coming  out  from  England  for  the  Puget's  Sound 
Agricultural  Company. 

Int.  939. — Who  was  the  senior  officer  of  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company  at  Vancouver,  in  1840? 

Ans. — It  must  have  been  the  late  Mr.  McLaughlin. 

Int.  940. — ^Who  was  senior  officer  of  the  Puget's  Sound 
Agricultural  Company  the  same  year? 


#•' 


# 


> 


IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


'ks 


1.0 


I.I 


U;|2£  |25 

ago   1^^"  HiiH 

Ui  m  12.2 

u    US 


lit 


IM 


11.25  i  1.4 


-    6" 


2.0 


1.6 


.Ife 


<^      A 


■^^ 


Photographic 

Sciences 

Corporation 


as  WEi  •  MA'X  ST3l!IT 

WnSTIR.N.Y.  I4SI0 

(716)  173-4903 


4r 


,% 


i? 


s\ 


i^l^^m^m^mrrw 


m 

Ana. — I  believe  the  same  gentleman,  the  late  Mr.  McLaugh- 
lin. 

Int.  941 — Please  answer  the  last  two  questions  with  refer- 
ence to  the  year  1846. 

^w«.— Things  had  changed  in  1846.  The  Hudson's  Bay 
Company's  affairs  were  then  controlled  by  a  board,  of  which 
the  late  Mr.  Ogden  was  the  senior  officer;  Mr.  Douglas  was 
the  next,  and  there  was  a  third  member,  whose  name  escapes 
me.  The  late  Mr.  Ogden  and  Mr.  Douglas  were  both  at  Van- 
couver ;  which  of  them  represented  the  interests  of  the  Puget's 
Sound  Company  I  am  unable  to  say. 

Int.  942. — Did  not  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  sell  sheep, 
cattle,  and  agricultural  implements  to  the  Puget's  Sound 
Agricultural  Company? 

Ans. — I  believe  there  was  some  such  transactions  between 
the  two  Companies. 

Int.  943. — Do  you  own  any  stock  in  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company? 

Ans. — I  do  not. 

Int.  944. — Did  you  ever  own  any? 

Ans. — Never  to  my  knowledge. 

Int.  945. — ^What  was  the  original  amount  of  stock  of  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company? 

Ans. — I  cannot  say. 

Int.  946. — What  is  the  present  capital  stock? 

Ans. — I  have  heard,  but  the  sum  has  escaped  my  memory. 

Int.  947. — Has  not  the  amount  of  capital  stock  been  in- 
creased? 

Ans. — I  have  been  informed  that  some  change  took  place 
in  the  increase  of  the  stock  during  the  year  1863,  but  the  de- 
tails of  such  change  I  remember  very  little  about. 

Int.  948. — Who  now  are  the  principal  owners  of  the  Hud- 
son's Bay  Company's  stock? 

Ans. — I  have  been  informed  that  the  stock  is  in  a  great 
many  hands,  but  I  believe  the  largest  amount  of  stock  in  otie 
name  is  in  the  shape  of  a  trust  fund  for  the  sum  of  £100,000, 
endowed  by  that  noble,  generous,  and  philanthropic  gentle- 


181 

man,  George  Peabody,  Esq.,  for  the  benefit  of  the  poor  of  the 
city  of  London. 

Int.  949. — Is  not  Sir  Curtis  Lamson  a  large  stockholder? 

Ans. — Sir  Curtis  Lamson  is  the  Deputy  Governor  of  the 
Company ;  I  cannot  say  w^at  stock  he  holds. 

Int.  950. — Is  not  Sir  Curtis  Lamson  a  native  of  the  United 
States,  and  has  he  not  received  his  title  for  his  services  in  lay- 
ing the  Atlantic  Cable? 

Ans. — I  have  so  read  in  the  public  prints. 

Int.  9.51. — Is  not  Mr.  Morgan,  successor  to  Mr.  Peabody, 
also  an  American,  and  a  large  owner  in  the  stock  of  the  Com- 
pany? 

Ans. — I  have  no  personal  acquaintance  with  Mr.  Morgan, 
neither  do  I  know  whether  he  is  a  proprietor  of  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company  stock  or  not. 

(The  counsel  for  the  United  States  requires  Mr.  Mactavish, 
who,  as  appears  from  his  evidence,  is  a  chief  factor  of  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company,  and  its  agent  in  the  prosecution  of  this 
claim,  to  produce  here,  for  examination  by  the  United  States  or 
their  Counsel,  all  accounts,  account-books,  and  letter-books  of 
said  Company,  together  with  the  regulations  under  which  these 
books  were  kept,  and  the  various  forms  of  contracts  with  ser- 
vants of  the  Company,  all  of  which  books,  rules,  and  forms 
contain  evidence  pertinent  to  the  issue  in  this  case,  as  appears 
from  the  cross-examination  of  Mr.  Mactavish,  and  suspends 
the  further  cross-examination  of  this  witness  until  he  shall 
produce  such  books,  accounts,  rules,  and  forms.) 

(The  Counsel  for  the  Company  protest  against  any  such  in- 
terpolations as  above  set  out  in  this  deposition.) 


V) 


■i 


■I    ■ 


4 


Examination  Beaumed,  May  1. 


Int.  952. — Will  you  please  produce  here  for  examination 
by  the  United  States  or  their  counsel,  all  accounts,  account- 
books,  and  letter-books  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  which 
were  kept  at  the  various  posts  of  that  Company  south  of  the 
49th  parallel  of  north  latitude  during  their  occupation  by  the 
Company,  together  with  the  regulations  under  which  their 


111 


\. 


/'■ 


f^ 


t 


162^ 

books  were  kept,  and  the  regular  forms  of  contracts  with  the 
Company's  servants. 

Ana. — I  cannot  say  whether  I  will  produce  them  or  not. 

(The  above  question  objected  to  as  incompetent,  and  as  ask- 
ing the  witness  not  as  to  what  he  knows  of  the  subject,  but  as 
to  what  his  future  course  of  action  will  be,  over  which,  as 
witness,  he  can  have  no  control.) 


88: 


District  of  Columbia,     \ 
City  of  Washington,  J 

I,  Samuel  H.  Huntington,  Clerk  of  the  United  States  Court  of 
Claims,  do  hereby  certify  that  the  foregoing  deposition,  hereto 
attached,  of  Dugald  Mactavish,  a  witness  examined  under  and 
in  accordance  with  the  stipulation  prefixed  to  the  same,  in  the 
matter  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  against  the  United  States 
now  pending  before  the  British  and  American  Joint  Commission 
for  the  final  adjustment  thereof,  was  taken  at  the  city  of  Wash- 
ington, in  the  District  aforesaid,  and  reduced  to  writing,  under 
my  direction,  by  a  person  agreed  upon  by  Charles  C.  Beaman, 
jr.,  Esq.,  attorney  for  the  United  States,  and  Edward  Lander, 
Esq.,  attorney  for  said  Company,  beginning  on  the  8th  day  of 
March  and  ending  the  1st  day  of  May,  1867.  I  further  cer- 
tify th^t,  before  his  said  re-examination,  I  administered  to  said 
witness  the  following  oath : 

"You  swear  that  the  evidence  you  shall  give  in  the  matter 
of  the  Claim  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  against  the  Uni- 
ted States  of  America  shall  be  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and 
nothing  but  the  truth:  so  help  you  God." 

That,  after  the  same  was  reduced  to  wifiting,  the  deposition 
of  said  witness  was  carefully  read  to  and  then  signed  by  him. 
I  further  certify  that  Charles  C.  Beaman,  jr.,  and  Edward 
Lander,  Esquires,  were  personally  present  during  such  re- 
examination of  said  witness,  and  the  reading  and  signing  of 
his  deposition. 

Witness  my  hand  and  official  seal.  \ 

[seal.]  Sam'l  H.  Huntington, 

Olerk  of  the  Court  of  Claims. 

City  op  Washinoton,  June  26, 1867. 


188 


In  the  matter  of  the  Claim  of  the  Eudaon's  Bay  Company 
against  the  United  States. 


Examination  or  cross-examination  of  William  H.  Farrar  re- 
sumed, by  agreement  between  G.  Gushing,  for  the  United 
States,  and  E.  Lander,  for  the  Hudson's  Bay  Gompanj, 
on  the  same  terms  and  conditions  provided  for  the  re- 
examination of  Dugald  Mactavish,  as  expressed  in  Articles 
1,  2,  3,  5,  and  6,  under  date  of  March  6, 1867,  taken  this, 
July  31, 1867,  at  Washington  city,  D.  G. 

Int.  1. — In  your  answer  to  Cross-Interrogatory  No.  6,  you 
say,  among  other  things,  as  follows:  "Negotiations  are  now 
in  progress  which  I  believe  will  settle  the  title  to  the  Mission 
lauds,  and  re^^ult  in  the  location  there  (at  Vancouver)  of  the 
Golumbia  ri^er  terminus  of  the  Northern  Pacific  Railroad." 
Have  not  the  negotiations  of  which  you  spoke  terminated 
since  that  time ;  and,  if  so,  how,  and  with  what  effect  upon 
the  actual  value  of  those  lands  ? 

Ans. — Those  negotiations  have  terminated,  and  the  title  to 
the  Mission  lands  has  not  yet  been  determined.  The  nego- 
tiations for  the  terminus  of  the  Northern  Pacific  Railroad  there 
have  been  abandoned ;  nothing  could  be  accomplished  in  that 
respect.  At  the  time  of  my  previous  examination  I  intended 
to  have  been  understood  as  saying  that  if  certain  negotiations 
then  in  progress  had  resulted  as  I  then  anticipated,  that  that 
land  would  have  been  worth  $1,000,000  to  the  persons  having 
a  clear  title  to  it,  allowing,  of  course,  after  the  procurement 
of  the  evidence  of  title  and  the  location  there  of  the  railroad, 
a  reasonable  time  for  the  owners  of  the  land  to  have  made  their 
money.  Without  a  good  title  to  that  land,  and  without  that 
being  made  the  terminus  of  the  railroad,  those  lands  would 
not  then  command  the  same  price  in  market. 

Int.  2. — When  you  previously  testified,  how  soon  did  you 
expect  or  believe  that  the  work  of  construction  would  be  com- 
menced? 

Am. — In  the  autumn  of  the  same  year. 


V! 


\ 


MU 


484 


I 


h 


Int.  8. — When  you  previously  testified,  how  soon  did  you 
believe  or  hope  that  the  War  Department  might  relinquish  the 
lands  and  a  patent  issued  to  the  Catholic  Mission  ? 

Am. — I  was  very  confident  of  obtaining  it  the  same  summer. 

Int.  4. — Has  or  not  the  Department  since  then  positively 
refused  to  relinquish  the  military  reservation  at  Vancouver? 

Ans. — Yes,  sir;  I  am  so  informed. 

(The  answer  objected  to  as  being  hearsay.) 

Tnt.5. — Were  you  counsel  for  the  Mission;  and,  if  so,  did 
you  acquire  the  above  information  as  counsel,  and  from  whom? 

Ans. — I  was  counsel,  and  obtained  the  information  from  my 
client. 

Int.  6. — Have  you  knowledge  of  any  company  or  persons 
in  Oregon  having  interest  in  the  establishment  of  a  shipping 
and  landing  port  and  railroad  terminus  at  some  point  on  the 
Columbia  river,  below  Fort  Vancouver ;  and,  if  so,  what  com- 
pany or  persons,  and  at  what  place? 

(Objected  to  as  irrelevant.) 

AnB. — No;  I  have  none  as  to  any  company  intending  to 
make  any  railroad  terminus  below  Portland,  or  the  mouth  of 
the  Willamette  river.  Since  I  testified  last  year,  the  Oregon, 
or  a  portion  of  the  stockholders  of  the  Oregon  Steam  Naviga- 
tion Company,  have  transferred  their  interest  to  a  party  or 
parties  residing  in  San  Francisco.  From  general  reputation 
and  newspaper  report,  it  was  the  intention  of  the  new  pur- 
chaser or  purchasers  to  abandon  Portland  as  their  headquar- 
ters and  make  St.  Helen's,  on  the  Columbia  river,  the  head- 
quarters of  that  Company,  and  of  an  ocean  line  of  steamers 
plying  between  San  Francisco  and  Oregon. 

Int.  7. — What  effect  on  the  prospects  of  Vancouver,  as  a 
landing  or  shipping  port,  would  be  produced  by  the  Steam 
Navigation  Company  establishing  its  terminus  at  or  below  St. 
Helen's,  on  the  Columbia  river? 

^n«.— 'Should  that  contemplated  change  take  place,  and 
prove  successful,  it  would  be  injurious  to  Vancouver;  but  I 
don't  think  it  will  be  a  success. 

Int.  8. — In  the  explanation  appended  to  re-examination 
Interrogatory  No.  3,  on  your  previous  examination,  you  say, 


It 


n 


Vi5 

"About  a  month  ago  I  did  contract  in  writing  for  a  deed  to  be 
made  to  me  and  my  associate  of  one-half  of  590  acres  of  the 
Mission  land  claim."  Has  not  that  contract  been  abandoned 
or  rescinded  by  you  and  your  associate? 

Atu. — ^It  has. 

Int.  9. — In  your  answer  to  said  third  Interrogatory  of  re- 
examination. "Whether  you  have  or  have  not  any  interest  in 
this  matter  against  the  Hudson's  Bay  Oompany,"  you  say,  "  I 
have  a  very  large  and  direct  one."  Are  you  at  the  present 
time  interested  in  any  way? 

Atu. — I  have  no  interest  in  the  lands  there  at  the  present 
time,  having  given  up  my  claim  or  interest. 

Int.  10. — Have  you  any  belief  or  expectation  of  the  estab- 
lishment, within  any  definite  approaching  time,  of  the  terminus 
and  workshops  of  the  Northern  Pacific  Railroad  at  Fort  Van- 
couver? 

Ans. — ^No,  sir,  I  have  none;  although  I  have  now  no  means 
of  information  what  that  Company  intends  to  do ;  but,  at  the 
time  I  relinquished  my  interest  in  the  land  at  Vancouver,  I 
had  been  led  to  believe  that  if  the  Northern  Pacific  Riulroad 
should  be  built,  that  Vancouver  would  not  be  designated  as  its 
western  terminus. 

Int.  11. — Have  you  visited  or  seen  the  saw-mills  of  the  Com- 
pany near  Vancouver ;  if  so,  when  did  you  first  see  them  ? 

Am. — In  1857,  or  early  in  1858,  I  was  the  attorney  for  a 
man  by  the  name  of  Taylor,  who  had  been  enjoined  by  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company  from  moving  a  parcel  of  old  iron  from 
the  saw-mill  on  Taylor's  land  claim.  Therefore  I  had  occa- 
sion to  visit  the  remains  of  that  mill.  The  mill  had  evidently 
been  abandoned;  it  was  disused;  there  was  no  perfect  ma- 
chinery there;  the  building  was  open  and  exposed  to  the  ingress 
and  egress  of  cattle.  As  to  any  other  mill  or  mills  I  have  no 
definite  knowledge  or  information,  but,  during  the  pendency  of 
that  suit  on  the  part  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  against 
Taylor,  I  neither  saw  nor  heard  anything  whatsoever  that  made 
any  impression  on  my  mind  that  there  was  any  mill  or  mills, 
other  than  the  one  I  have  already  mentioned,  in  its  immediate 
vicinity  of  any  value  whatever. 
13  B 


/ 


mmm 


186 

Jnt.  12. — ^Did  you  see  or  hear  anything  of  a  gang  saw-mill 
elaimed  by  the  Company? 
Ant. — ^According  to  my  recdUection,  not  a  word. 

W.  H.  FabbarI 


District  of  Columbia,        \ 
County  of  Waahington.  J 

I,  Nicholas  Callan,  a  notary  public  in  and  for  the  county 
and  District  aforesaid,  do  hereby  certify  that  the  foregoing 
deposition,  hereto  attached,  of  William  H.  Farrar,  a  witness 
previously  examined  in  the  matter  of  the  Claims  of  the  Hud- 
son's Bay  Company  against  the  United  States,  now  pending 
before  the  British  and  American  Joint  Commission  for  the 
final  adjustment  thereof,  was  taken  and  reduced  to  writing  in 
the  said  city  of  Washington,  under  my  direction,  by  a  person 
agreed  upon  by  Caleb  Cushing,  Esq.,  attorney  for  the  United 
States,  and  Edward  Lander,  Esq.,  attorney  for  the  said  Com- 
pany, on  the  31st  day  of  July,  1867. 

I  further  certify  that  I  administered  the  following  oath  to 
said  witness  before  his  examination : 

"You  swear  that  the  evidence  you  shall  give  in  the  matter 
of  the  Claims  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  against  the  Uni- 
ted States  of  America  shall  be  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and 
nothing  but  the  truth :  so  help  you  God." 

And  that,  after  the  same  was  reduced  to  writing,  the  depo- 
sition of  said  witness  was  carefully  read  to  and  then  signed 
by  him  in  the  presence  of  the  aforesaid  counsel. 

In  testimony  whereof  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and 
[seal.]    oflScial  seal  this  24th  day  of  August,  1867. 

N.  Callan, 
Notary  Public. 


tEiiSiiii~iWaiirii 


i 


:•-».*«•"*>**»•• 


187 


-i  > 


Letter  marked  "D"  referred  to  in  Interrogatory  647,  p.  148, 
printed  evidence.    {Supra.) 

Fort  Vancouver,  W.  T.,  May  9, 1866. 
The  Hon.  Jameb  Tilton, 

Surveyor  General  of  Wathington  Territory,  Olympia. 

Sir:  I  have  to  aoknowlodge  receipt  on  the  4th  inst.  of 
your  letter  of  the  28th  April,  requesting  that  a  map  or  author- 
itative statement  of  the  claim  or  claims  to  land  of  the  Hud- 
son's Bay  Company  on  the  Columbia  river,  near  Fort  Van- 
couver, should  be  handed  to  you,  and  further  stating  that  you 
had  been  instructed  to  cause  the  lines  of  public  surveys  to  be 
extended  up  to  the  actual  settlements  of  the  British  claimants, 
according  to  the  limiti  of  the  same  at  the  date  of  the  treaty 
of  1846. 

In  reply,  I  beg  most  respectfully  to  mention  that  I  am  una- 
ble to  furnish  you  with  the  statement  you  require,  as  I  do  not 
consider  myself  at  liberty  to  define  any  precise  limits  to  the 
claims  of  the  Company,  not  having  authority  to  that  effect 
from  the  Governor  and  committee  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Com- 
pany in  London,  without  which  any  opinion  of  mine  would  not 
be  binding  on  the  Company. 

I  take  the  liberty  of  calling  your  attention  to  the  following 
extract  from  Chief  Factor  Ballenden's  letter  of  30th  July, 
1862,  to  Surveyor  General  Preston,  of  Oregon  Territory,  and 
I  have  to  request  that  no  surveys  be  made  or  claims  granted 
within  the  limits  granted  by  Mr.  Ballenden : 

"  There  is,  however,  a  certain  tract  of  country  in  the  neigh- 
borhood of  Vancouver,  which  was  for  a  long  period  {and  if  our 
rights  were  respected  ttilt  ought  to  he)  in  the  sole  possession  and 
occupation  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  within  those  limits 
I  must  respectfully  request  that  no  surveys  be  made,  or  claims 
granted  to  any  person  whatever,  without  the  approbation  of 
the  Hudson's  Bay  Company.  That  tract  to  which  I  refer  com- 
mences at  a  stake  and  tree,  marked,  on  the  north  bank  of  the 
Colup")  ia  river,  about  two  miles  west  of  Willow  Point;  thence 
running  northerly  along  the  slough  until  it  meets  the  outlet 
14  B 


MKlKinoww*"' 


188 

of  the  Lake  Biver ;  thenoe  following  the  meanderi  (easterly) 
of  the  said  river  to  the  large  lake,  19^  milei,  paising  on  the 
north  hank,  until  it  strikes  a  small  stream  entering  the  lake 
on  northeast  side ;  thence  running  E.  1&*>  S.,  0^  miles,  to  a  stake 
marked  between  the  Third  and  Fourth  Plains  in  a  swamp ; 
thenoe  E.  22°  S.,  4}  miles,  to  the  Oamas  Plain,  to  a  stake 
marked;  thence  south  8|  miles  to  the  Columbia  river;  thenje 
following  the  meanders  of  said  river  to  the  place  of  beginning. 
Also,  one  small  island  south  of  Vancouver  on  the  Columbia 
river." 
Most  respectfully,  I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

DUOALD  MAOTAVISn, 

Chi^  Factor  Hudton't  Bay  Company. 


BRITISH  AND  AMERICAN  JOINT  COMMISSION 


OS  TBS 


L7DS0N'S  BAY  AND  PUGET'S  SOUND  AGRICUL- 
TUBAL  COMPANIES'  CLAIMS. 


In  the  meUter  of  the  Claims  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company 
and  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company. 

It  is  agreed  by  and  between  Dr.  Wm.  F.  Tolmie,  agent  of 
the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  and  W.  Carey  Johnson,  attor- 
ney and  agent  of  the  United  States,  that  upon  an  examination 
and  inspection  of  the  archives  and  books  of  the  Company  re- 
maining at  Victoria,  Vancouver  Island,  the  present  head- 
quarters of  the  Columbia  district,  made  between  the  9th  and 
18th  days  of  April,  A.  D.,  1867,  with  reference  to  the  points 
suggested  in  the  memorandum  of  Judge  Day,  senior  counsel 
of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  a  copy  of  which  is  hereto 
annexed,  marked  <<A,"  the  following  results  were  arrived  at: 

1.  As  to  subdivision  "  1 "  of  said  memorandum,  no  such  de- 
tailed inventory  and  valuation  is  within  the  knowledge  of  the 
Company's  agents  at  Victoria,  nor  can  any  such  be  found  after 
due  and  diligent  search. 

2.  No  statement  with  reference  to  the  lands  at  Cowlitz 
and  Nisqually  has  been  found  in  the  books  of  either  Com- 
pany at  Victoria,  after  diligent  search;  the  only  item  charged 
against  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company  which  can 
be  found,  aside  from  the  wages  of  servants  furnished,  and  the 
usual  supplies  of  merchandise,  &;c.,  being  .£258  for  sheep  at 
the  Cowlitz  grazing  farm  in  1840. 

8.  Nothing  casting  any  light  upon  the  subject  named  in  this 
subdivision  has  been  found  after  diligent  search. 

4.  It  is  evident  from  an  examination  of  the  books  that  no 
account  was  kept  of  the  cost  of  erecting  and  repairing  posts, 
the  only  accounts  returned  from  the  districts  and  posts  being 


1 


nmftmimvm'^ 


190 


iervants'  wages,  and  the  goods  expended  for  labor  and  trade, 
which  were  set  off  against  the  furs  returned,  and  the  profit  for 
the  year  thus  arrived  at. 

6.  Statement  "B,"  hereto  annexed,  shows  the  net  gain  of 
the  Hudson's  Lay  Company  at  the  posts  named  in  the  memo- 
rial during  the  years  mentioned  in  this  subdivision.  It  has 
been  impossible  to  classify  the  trade,  except  at  Vancouver; 
but,  as  throwing  some  ligh*  on  this  subject,  statement  marked 
"0"  is  hereto  annexed,  showing  the  amount  and  value  of  furs 
traded  at  these  posts  during  the  years  nam:)d.  It  is  necessary 
and  proper  to  state  in  this  connection  that  the  post  at  Okana- 
gan  was,  until  about  1848,  included  in  the  district  of  Thomp- 
son's river,  which  lay  principally  north  of  the  49th  parallel 
of  north  latitude.  After  that  time  it  was  included  in  the  Col- 
vile  district.  The  value  of  furs  traded  in  Thompson's  River 
district  for  the  years  1840  to  1847,  inclusive,  was  as  follows: 
For  1840,  ^1,182  6«.  Sd.;  for  1841,  £1,154  4«.  lid.;  for 
1842,  £1,419  0«.  Id.;  for  1848,  £1,167  18».  6d.;  for  1844, 
£1,458  8».  Od.;  for  1855,  £1,581  6(r.  5d.;  for  1856,  £1,878 
59.  Gd.;  for  1847,  £1,502  9».  Od.  The  separate  trade  of 
Okanagan  cannot  be  determined  from  the  books  found. 

The  statement  under  the  head  of  Vancouver  includes  the 
posts  of  ,Caweenian,  at  the  mouth  of  the  Cowlitz  river,  Fort 
George  or  Astoria,  Cape  Disappointment,  Pillar  Rock,  Cham- 
poeg,  and  Umpqna.  The  Willamette  Falls,  appearing  in 
the  accounts,  was  a  trading-pos*  at  Oregon  City,  principally 
for  settlers  in  the  Willamette  Vi>  .ey,  the  goods  for  which  were 
ordered  and  supplied  from  Vancouver  as  they  were  needed. 
The  statement  under  the  head  of  Colvile  includes  the  posts  at 
Kootenais,  and  Flat-Heads,  and  Okanagan,  after  1847 ;  and 
that  under  the  head  of  the  "Snake  Country"  includes  Forts 
Hall  and  Bois^,  this  being  the  mode  in  which  the  Company's 
accounts  were  kept  from  year  to  year,  by  districts.  The 
"Southern  Party"  was  fitted  out  at  Vancouver  to  trap  on  the 
shores,  south  and  east  of  Umpqua,  but  was  discontinued  after 
1848.  Goods  on  hand  at  all  these  posts  were  valued  at  a  uni- 
form advance  of  38^  per  cent,  over  first  cost  in  Europe.  No 
accounts  current  of  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company 


191 

have  been  found  from  vhich  to  determine  the  annual  profits  of 
its  business  during  the  years  mentioned. 

W.   F.   TOLMIB, 

Agent  for  the  Sudton's  Bay  and  Puget's  Sound  Agr'l  Co. 

W.  Caret  Johnson, 
Attorney  and  Agent  of  the  United  8tate». 
Victoria,  B.  C,  April  18, 1867. 


[A.] 


Memorandum  of  points,  on  which  the  hooks  of  account  and  docu- 
ments at  Victoria  may,  by  consent,  be  examined  by  the  counsel 
of  the  United  States. 

1.  Detailed  inventory  and  valuation  of  the  several  proper- 
ties of  the  Hudson's  Bay  and  Puget's  °ound  Agricultural 
Companies. 

9.  Inventory  cost  at  which  the  lands  at  Nisqually  and  Cow- 
litz were  transferred  by  tho  Hudson's  Bay  Company  to  the 
Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company. 

3.  Actual  purchase  money  paid  by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Com- 
pany for  Fort  Hall. 

4.  Actual  cost  of  the  several  posts  of  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company  and  of  the  establishments  of  the  Puget's  Sound 
Agricultural  Company,  and  of  the  structures  which  they  com- 
prehend. 

5.  Annual  trading  profits  of  each  of  the  Companies  in 
Oregon,  classified  according  to  their  nature,  for  the  ten  years 
concluding  with  1850. 


.i. 


192 


i 


i 


I 


i 


i 


i 


•«*s*a-s  la 


-nil's  II 


«^g|is  IE- 


•rf-ss*"-"  r  Is 
••ass-*'"  •• 


•tK.I'T.*"!.  **\ 


nj^rt^lg 


Ct>   ;m 


a  ; 


•pi«  ii 


iiaHMO* 


••aaa^-a  1 1 


••a-a-a*"  I 


•<'»"s»-saa  I 


••aas'ssa  j 


AaffJfA    ^^  I 


I 


i!  !  I       h 

ifl     ■Sll 


I 


9 

f 


p^ 


198 


o 


^  ^ 


o 

if 

CO 
H 


I*' 

e 
S 

tiuoHxo 

i 

■saoqaivq^ 

li 

:  : 
:  : 

• 

lepiHxo 

i 

i 

•moinx 

il 

: 

: 

1 

•WAlOAl 

s'S^sj 

■raoooiMiH 

sas"  j 

■je)io«e8 

a 

:  : 

;  i 
1 

■■'•MOP""! 

igss.S : 

•»«niiiiji 

176 
3,990 
1,105 

493 

•VIK 

iR^m  1 

•n9M»K 

■znii 

■H«iSa|ii 

4^ 

11 

j 

■WSOJI 

: 

•uaqqa 

Q|8,«  ; 

■miuotnf) 

^i 

:^    : 
3"^  i 

-uatnaa 

1,912 

1,523 

444 

2,680 
1,892 

insa 

9^n&  \ 

■u»39p«S 

:' 

sss 

1 

I 

i 

:      : 

;      : 

i 

:      i 

SB'S 

: 
! 

! 

1 

H 


s 


ss^a 


S2S< 


{:|SS 


a§sg^ 


■^ 


S33S 


S9 


S 


«*§§•" 


M 

S   O  9    _ 


194 


-2 


g 

■s 

a 

o 

1 

u 

•e 

« 

c 

i» 

^ 

00 

*&> 

H 

I 


■loioH  xo 


■aaoqa|«ui 


••opiH  xo 


•AO||«I 


•■84)0^ 


■aooosBH 


•aeMO  »08 


•»»10  pnwi 


ttu^anjc 


'vm 


■nannji 


-za<i 


■miSoiBi 


•aoxoi 


■usqiM 


•miuotno 


•jsAVsg 


traaa 


■usSpvg 


•jfinoee 


Ss|3 


iS2BB 


"e*"s 


sss? 


2|S* 


=51528 


lllll 


CO 

00 
rl 


CSMOtMX 

mm 


gas* 


iigia 


V  W  A  SS 


3:S$S 


93^ 


S88' 


:^ 


!  I 


I '  i 


00 
H 


glag 


rs 


t.  00  Si  5. 


^is* 


10 

00 
H 


T 


mm. 


196 


R. 


00 
H 


S!*S& 


(•  14  lira 


SISS 


2*^" 
"G"!? 


;3?S 


ssss 


SiziSS 


Si§§ 


-ssa 


5  : 
!  I 

9  ei" 
S  =  ^  S 


^5 


Kco 


til  TOt»  W  ^^ 


(0 

00 
H 


5f 


gS8S 


^ 


§§li 


ef 


SnnS 


'§??- 


3  ?1  h.<t 


g„gg 


^ 

if 

00 
H 


s 


&s&« 


>  O  to  4 


a  to  —  -^ 

sssg 


;i9S 


SICiS 


'a  IS 


^00^  9 


•S"' 


00 

00 
H 


QD  O  00  QO 


:  !  \ 
i  !  ! 


'IS^ 


II5§ 


s§§2 


«|S2 


SS^U 


X  A  C^  ^* 


-|S| 


'3- 


;  I 


«3  «  3 


\i^ 


:>>. 


V 


'I 


/I 

'■,    ! 


,1 


fi^jiiim''- 


196 


I, 


4 


1 

i 
I 


> 

645    7  10 

8,475    8  U 

252    5    6 

681    8   7 

s 
s 

■lajoH  XQ 

:   : 

1   1 

1   : 

•»Boq(»i»qM 

:   :  !  ! 

:  :  :   : 
:  :  :   : 

•WPIH  »0 

:   :  :  : 
:  :  :  : 

i  1  1  i 

•moii»i 

1   :  .   :' 
:  :  :   : 
:  :  :  : 
:  :  :   : 
:  :  :  : 

••OAIO^ 

-•sgi 

'aooaa«H 

|38- 

•JB»JO  "98 

n  \ 

' 

•J9JJ0  puwi 

S5SS 

GO 
H 

•laHTOM 

4,237 
167 
607 

iniK 

oOffSS 

•na^HK 

ii"B 

•xaii 

»§sa 

■«8»|8a|ai 

: 

•9X0^ 

S|S| 

■uaqsij 

lllH'tfOO 

9 

'miuotmo 

: 

M 

■jSAVsg 

■UBsa 

S|^S 

-us8p«Q 

IS"* 

! 

1 

ii 

1 

0 
10 
00 
H 


5|««§ 


SSS" 


iS^s 


!I§SS 


S3SS9 


9iF3$ 


sisl 


I 


1 


3 

a  ' 


r 


g 

a 
■s 


•a 

B 
e> 

a 

a 

a 

i 

s 

I 

e 


5 

a 
1 


I 


•S 


I 
•3 

S 

•9 


mff^m 


197 


\<.- 


■\ 


S 


8 


e 


o 


l-HN  r-li-t 


Nr-t 


s 


eo 


M 
H 

P4 


H 
H 
H 

CO 


s 


lO 

eo 


<<N 


g 


(Ml> 


(N 


S 


S!S 


iHrieOiH 


i-iffiMcoevi-^eooo 


OOOrH 


S 


MO 


CO 


(N 


<e 


S§ 


o 

M 

?3 


lO 


©««»-■*« 


»* 


CO 


eo 


(N 


eo 


to 


S 


eo 
eo 


CO 


to 

CO 


a 


o     bbSP 

»»     S  o  i_ 

a    o  *  M  -  r  >■ 


S^   ?t3Ph  S  ei  O  pa 


1 
1 


o 
a 
1 

S 
ea 
o 

1 

eoeo 


o 
H 


'-.1 


,/ 


198 


I 


CLASSIFICATION  OF  THE  FOREGOING. 


Chief  factors 3 

Chief  traders 3 

Clerks  and  surgeons 2 

Clerks 9 

Apprenticed  clerks 3 

Postmasters  and  apprentices 6 

Farmers  and  gardeners 3 

Dairymen 4 

BlacKsmiths 6 

Coopers 6 

Carpenters  and  apprentices 7 

Sawyers 2 

Steward 1 

Seedsmen 2 


Indian  traders 5 

Shepherds 2 

Horsekeeper 1 

Baker 1 

Cook 1 

Ship  carpenters 2 

Millers  and  millrights 3 

Guides  and  interpreters 7 

Boatbuilders 2 

Laborers 232 

Teacher r...  1 

2 

315 


199 


5 
2 
1 
1 
1 
2 
3 
7 
2 
232 
1 
2 

315 


[  Copy  No.  2.  ] 

British  and  American  Joint  Commission  on  Hudson's  Bat 
AND  Pdqet's  Sound  Agricultural  Company's  Claims. 

In  the  matter  of  the  Olaims  of  the  Hudton'a  Bay  Company. 

Victoria,  V.  I.,  April  11, 1867. 
Dear  Sir:  In  addition  to  the  points  noted  for  examination 
in  the  memorandum  of  Judge  Day,  enclosed  in  the  letter  of 
Dr.  H.  A.  Tuzo,  of  date  of  January  11, 1867,*  I  am  instructed 
by  Gen.  Gushing,  senior  counsel  for  the  United  States,  respect- 
fully to  request  as  follows : 

1.  That  you  submit  for  my  examination  all  the  documents 
and  correspondence,  printed  or  otherwise,  now  in  possession 
of  the  Company  at  Victoria,  relating  to  the  sale  and  transfer 
of  either  the  stock  or  property  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company 
in  1863.  At  or  about  that  time  it  is  allegef"  that  the  holders 
of  the  oi'iginal  stock,  as  it  has  existed  for  many  years,  sold 
the  entire  property  of  the  Company  in  Europe  and  America, 
including  the  claim  against  the  United  States  now  under  ex- 
amination, to  a  new  association  of  individuals,  through  the 
agency  of  the  "International  Credit  Association;"  and  that 
at  that  time  the  capital  stock  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company 
was  increased  from  half  a  million  to  two  millions  pounds  ster- 
ling. All  documents  and  correspondence  you  have  relating  to 
or  throwing  light  upon  that  transaction,  or  to  any  sale  of  the 
Company's  property  or  stock,  I  desire  to  examine. 

2.  That  you  submit  for  my  examination  all  the  documents, 
correspondence,  and  papers  in  the  possession  of  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company  at  Victoria,  relating  to  the  claims  of  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company  to  lands  on  Vancouver's  Island  and  iu  British 
Columbia,  as  dealt  with  by  the  Government  of  Great  Britain. 
This  is  supposed  to  include  grants  of  lands  and  posts  in  fee, 
and  also  a  grant  or  grants  in  trust  for  the  repayment  of  moneys 
expended  at  an  early  day  by  the  -Company  in  the  government 
of  the  colonies  referred  to  above. 

3.  I  have  further  respectfully  to  request  that  the  inquiry 

*  Vide  Supra  A. 


; 


W 


i 


A 


I 


(4 


4 


200 

relating  to  the  annual  profits  of  the  Hadson's  Bay  Company's 
posts,  referred  to  in  subdivision  five  of  Judge  Day's  memoran- 
dum, be  extended  also  over  the  years  from  1850  to  and  in- 
cluding 1862,  or  to  such  time  as  each  particular  post  was  aban- 
doned by  the  Company  or  ceased  to  be  used  by  them  for  the 
purposes  of  trade.  If  any  result  pertinent  to  the  subject  of 
the  Company's  claim  is  to  be  reached  by  an  examination  under 
this  head  after  1846,  it  would  not  present  a  fair  view  to  the 
Commissioners  unless  extended  to  the  time  of  the  treaty  of 
1868,  under  which  they  are  acting. 

Hoping  at  an  early  day  to  receive  a  favorable  reply  to  these 
requests,  I  am,  dear  sir,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  ser- 
vant, ^ 

W.  Carey  Johnson, 

Attomei/,  ^e. 

Dr.  W.  F.  ToLMiE, 

Agent,  ^c: 


w 


/ 


[  Copy  No.  3.  ] 

British  and  American  Joint  Commission  on  Hudson's  Bay 
AND  Pugbt's  Sound  Agricultural  Company's  Claims. 

In  the  matter  of  the  Claim  of  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural 

Compani/. 

Victoria,  V.  I.,  April  11, 1867. 
Dear  Sir:  Referring  to  the  memorandum  of  Judge  Day,  a 
copy  of  which  was  enclosed  to  me  in  letter  of  Dr.  H.  A.  Tuzo, 
of  January  11, 1867, 1  have  the  honor  respectfully  to  request 
that  the  examination  of  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Com- 
pany's books  upon  the  point  referred  to  in  subdivision  five  of 
Judge  Day's  memorandum  be  extended  over  the  years  after 
1850,  to  and  including  the  year  1862,  for  the  reasons  given  in 


I 

t 
t 
a 
t 
I 
s 
n 

P 


201 

my  letter  of  thia  date  relating  to  the  claim  of  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company. 

Hoping  for  favorable  answer,  I  am,  dear  sir,  your  obedient 
servant, 

W.  Carey  Johnson, 

Attomei/f  ^c. 
Dr.  W.  F.  ToLMiB, 

Agent,  ^o. 


British  and  American  Joint  Commission  on  Hudson's  Bay 
AND  PuaET's  Sound  Aorioultural  Company's  Claims, 

In  the  matter  of  the  Olaimt  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  and  Puget's 
Sound  Agricultural  Companies. 

Victoria,  B.  C,  April  15,  1867. 

Dear  Sir:  I  have  to  acknowledge  receipt  of  your  letter 
dated  Victoria,  April  11, 1867,  applying,  as  you  therein  state, 
by  direction  of  Mr.  Cushing,  foi'  access  to  books,  and  informa- 
tion on  various  points,  far  beyond  what,  under  my  only  instruc- 
tions on  the  subject  from  Mr.  Day — of  which  you  have  received 
a  copy — I  conceive  myself  authorized  to  furnish.  I  regret, 
therefore,  that  I  cannot  now  comply  with  your  request;  but 
I  shall  immediately  apply  to  Mr.  Day  for  instructions  on  the 
subject  of  your  application.  Very  likely  much  of  the  infor- 
mation you  desire  will  appear  in  documentary  evidence  to  be 
presented  by  the  counsel  for  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company. 

I  harve  the  honor  to  be,  dear  sir,  very  respectfully,  yours,  &c., 

W.  F.  TOLMIB, 

Agent  for  the  H,  B.  and  P.  8.  A.  Companies. 

Wm.  Carey  Johnson,  Esq., 

Attorney  and  Agent  for  the  United  States. 


r 


I 


«ff 


^•wvt 


.// 


/ 


^1  ^ 


DOCUMENTARY  EVIDENCE. 


I 


15  B 


wmmmmmmi'miimmm 


^  ^ 


DOCUMENTARY  EVIDENCE. 


BRITISH  AND  AMERICAN  JOINT  COMMISSION  ON 
HUDSON'S  BAY  AND  PUGET'S  SOUND  AGRI- 
CULTURAL COMPANIES*  CLAIMS, 


The  Unitkd  States  produce  in  defence  the  documents  and 
printed  and  written  papers  specified  in  the  following  lists : 


-r. 


List  A. 
Documents  affecting  the  claims  of  both  Companies. 

List  B. 

Documents  affecting  the  case  of  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricul- 
tural Company. 


List  C. 

Documents  affecting  the  case  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Com- 
pany. 


T 


[A.J 

MIXED. 

1. — Report  of  Governor  Stevens,  of  Washington  Territory^ 
relative  to  the  claim  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company 
and  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company,  in  Oregon 
and  Washington,  dated  Juno  21,  1854.  Donts.,  33d 
Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Senate,  Ex.,  No.  37. 

2. — Letter  of  Sir  George  Simpson  concerning  the  claims  of 
the  Hudson's  Bay  and  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural 
Companies,  dated  January  14,  1848.  Docts.,  31st 
Coi:^.,  2d  Sess.,  Senate,  Ex.,  No.  20,  p.  4. 

3. — Letter  of  Sir  John  H.  Pelly  to  Mr.  Clayton,  dated  June 
29,  1849.  Docts.,  81st  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Senate,  Ex., 
No.  20,  p.  20. 

4. — Memorandum  of  Sir  George  Simpson  with  reference  to 
the  Hudson's  Bay  and  Puget's  Sound  Companies'  pos- 
sessory rights  in  Oregon,  dated  December  3,  1852. 

MS. 

5. — Correspondence  relative  to  surveying  the  land  claimed 
by  the  Hudson's  Bay  and  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural 
-    Companies,  dated  January  24^  1856.     Docts.,  Council 
Washington  Territory. 

6. — Report  of  the  Commissioner  of  Public  Lands  of  the  Uni- 
ted States  on  the  claims  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  and  Pu- 
get's Sound  Agricultural  Companies,  dated  January  2, 
1865.    MS. 

7. — Letter  of  Lord  Napier  to  Mr.  Cass,  dated  May  16,  1858.     \ 
MS. 

8. — Letter  of  Mr.  Cass  to  Lord  Lyons,  dated  June  7, 1860. 

MS. 


207 

9. — Letter  of  Lord  Lyons  to  Mr.  Cass,  dateu  June  8,  1860. 
MS. 

10. — Letter  of  Mr.  Cass  to  Lord  Lyons,  dated  November  26, 
1860.    MS. 

11. — Letter  of  Lord  Lyons  to  Mr.  Cass,  dated  December  10, 
1860.    MS. 

12. — Despatches  of  Sir  E.  B.  Lytion  to  Governor  Douglas, 
'      dated  July  16, 1858,  (two,)  July  31, 1858,  and  August 
14,  1858,  (two.)    Parliamentary  Papers,  in  British  Co- 
lumbia, Pt.  1,  pp.  42,  43,  44,  4T,  49. 


X  A 


[B.] 

CASE  OF  THE  PUGET'S  SOUND  COMPANY. 

1. — Report  of  James  Tilton,  Surveyor  General  of  Washington 
Territory,  on  the  Claims  of  the  Puget's  Sound  Agri- 
cultural Company,  dated  December  8,  1857.    MS. 

2. — Land  Claims  of  Pierre  Lagace,  and  others,  in  Washington 
Territory.     MS. 

3. — Report  of  Lt.  E.  J.  Harvie  respecting  Claims  of  Puget's 
Sound  Agricultural  Company,  dated  July  26,  1859. 

MS.  , 

4. — The  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company  against  the 
county  of  Pierce,  Transcript,  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States. 


CASE  OF  THE  HUDSON'S  BAY  COMPANY. 

1. — Mr.  Brown's  Report  to  the  Governor  General  of  Canada, 
dated  January  26,  1865. 


208 

2. — Extract  from  <<  Report  of  the  Delegates  to  England," 
dated  July  12, 1865. 

« 

3. — ^Extract  from  Captain  Palliser's  Exploration  in  British 
North  America.     Parliamentary  Papers,  1863,  p.  155. 

4. — Despatch  of  Governor  Douglas  to  Sir  E.  B.  Lytton,  dated 
February  4,  1849.  Parliamentary  Papers  on  British 
Columbia,  Pt.  2,  pp.  44  and  45 ;  and  reply  of  Sir  E.  B. 
Lytton,  dated  February  8, 1859.     Ibid,  p.  79. 

5. — Report  of  Captain  Ingalls  on  Military  Reservation  in 
Oregon,  dated  July  16, 1852.    MS.  .\ 

6. — Extra  ts  from  Major  Cross's  Report  of  March  to  Oregon, 
contained  in  Annual  Report  of  the  Quartermaster 
General  of  the  United  States  of  June  30,  1850. 

7. — Extract  from  Decisions  of  the  Commissioner  of  Claims 
under  the  Convention  of  February  8, 1853,  between  the 
United  States  and  Great  Britain,  p.  164. 

8. — Extract  from  Report  of  Captain  M.  E.  Van  Buren  con- 
cerning Cape  Disappointment,  dated  May  30,  1850. 

MS.,' 

9. — Correspondence  of  Colonel  W.  W.  Loring,  and  others, 
respecting  the  Military  Reservation  at  Fort  Vancouver, 
1850-1853.    MS.  ,    . 

10. — Land  Claims  of  James  Douglas,  and  others,  in  the  vicinity 
of  Vancouver.    MS. 

11. — Claim  of  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  growing  out  of  Indian 
Hostilities,  filed  in  the  Third  Auditor's  Office,  Treasury 
Department  of  the  United  States.     MS. 


209 


33d  Congress,  \ 
2d  Session.     } 


A— 1. 

SENATE. 


Ex.  Doc. 
No.  37. 


V        J 


LETTER 


FROM 


THE   SECRETARY   OF  STATE, 


TO  THE 


Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Belations,  communicating 
the  report  of  Governor  Stevens,  of  Washington  Territory,  to 
the  Department  of  State,  of  June  21,  1854,  relative  to  the 
property  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  and  Puget's  Sound  Company 
in  that  Territory. 


Febbuakt  1,  1856. — Read  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 


Department  of  State, 

Washington,  February  7,  1855. 
Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your 
letter  of  yesterday;  and,  in  compliance  with  the  request  therein 
contained,  transmit  a  copy  for  the  printer  of  the  report  of  Gov- 
ernor Stevens,  of  Washington  Territory,  to  this  department, 
of  the  21st  June  last,  relative  to  the  property  of  the  Hudson's 
Bay  and  Puget's  Sound  Company  in  that  Territory. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient 
servant,  W.  L.  MARCY. 

Hon.  James  M.  Mason, 

Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations,  Senate^ 


Governor  Stevens  to  Mr.  Marcy. 

Washington,  June  21,  1854. 
Sir  :  In  pursuance  of  your  instructions  of  June  3,  1853, 
directing  me  to  furnish  a  statement  of  the  property  of  all 


»«»««»>♦.*.  -»ti4ai4**SaiV; 


>"  fc.fc-.«?^-.ji.:,*i  =^;, 


210 


descriptions  within  the  Territory  of  Washington,  as  well  as  in 
Oregon,  claimed  by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  and  the  Puget's 
Sound  Agricultural  Company,  and  to  present  a  fair  estimate 
of  its  value,  I  have  the  honor  to  submit  the  following  report : 

Upon  examining  the  subject  committed  to  me  for  ny  views, 
I  at  once  perceived  that  a  broad  difference  would  exist  between 
the  Government  of  the  United  States  and  the  Companies  in 
question,  as  to  the  value  and  extent  of  their  rights  and  pos- 
sessions. Claims  of  a  most  extravagant  character  have  been 
set  up  by  these  Companies,  in  view  of  propositions  which  have 
been  made  to  the  Government  of  the  United  States  to  acquire 
by  purchase  and  extinguish  all  the  rights  and  claims  of  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company  and  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural 
Company  within  the  territory  of  the  United  States,  whether 
secured  by  treaty  or  otherwise,  legally  acquired  and  held  by 
these  Companies. 

The  claims  of  these  Companies  are  presented  in  a  pamphlet 
entitled  "Extent  and  value  of  the  possessory  rights  of  the  Hud- 
son's Bay  Company  in  Oregon,southof  the  forty-ninth  degree,"- 
containing  opinions  of  American  and  Canadian  counsel. 

In  this  pamphlet  it  is  assumed  that  the  possessory  rights  of  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company  extend  over  the  whole  territory  north 
of  the  Columbia  river,  and  that  in  this  territory,  south  of  the 
forty-nintli  degree  of  latitude,  the  United  States  have  merely 
the  sovereignty  with  a  naked  fee,  encumbered  with  a  right  of 
occupation  by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  which  is  valid  until 
extinguished  by  transfer,  and  would  bar  ejectment.  It  is  also 
assumed  that  the  farms,  lands,  and  other  property  of  the 
Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company,  to  the  full  extent  of 
their  claims,  are  fully  confirmed  by  the  3d  article  of  the  treaty 
of  1846.  The  Hudson's  Bay  Company  further  maintain  that 
the  right  of  trading  with  the  Indians  is  included  among  the 
possessory  rights  which  are  to  bo  respected  by  the  terms  of 
treaty,  and  they  declare  that  "  it  is  in  the  utmost  degree  im- 
probable that  the  high  cantracting  parties,  the  framers  of  the 
treaty,  ever  contemplated  denying  the  Company  one  of  the 
most  important  rights  it  possessed." — (See  letter  of  Mr.  Tol- 
mie,  chief  trader  of  Hudson's  Bay  Company.) 


mmm 


,\ 


211 

• 
The  first  point  of  inquiry  is  as  to  the  validity  of  the  claims 
thus  asserted. 

By  the  treaty  of  1846,  the  territory  south  of  the  49th  degree 
of  latitude  was  ceded  to  the  United  States,  or  rather  it  was 
determined  that  the  right  of  sovereignty  of  this  territory  which 
had  been  claimed  by  both  governments  was  in  the  United  States. 
It  will  be  acknowledged  that  if  a  territory  is  ceded  by  treaty, 
the  right  of  the  State  ceding  such  territory,  and  the  rights  of 
individuals  and  corporations  derived  from  such  State,  are  wholly 
extinguished.  The  rights  of  individuals  depend  upon  the  State 
to  which  the  cession  is  made.  The  obligation  of  the  State 
receiving  the  cession  does  not  extend  beyond  the  express  terms 
of  the  treaty.  By  the  treaty  of  1846  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  pledged  itself  in  future  appropriations  of  the 
territory  to  respect  the  possessory  rights  of  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company,  and  of  all  tjie  British  subjects  who  may  have  been 
at  the  date  of  the  treaty  in  the  occupation  of  land  or  other 
property  lawfully  acquired  within  said  territory,  and  also  to 
confirm  the  farms,  lands,  and  other  property  of  every  descrip- 
tion belonging  to  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company. 

It  is  apparent  that  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
.simply  pledged  itself  to  continue  the  policy  which  it  had  inva- 
riably pursued,  in  its  successive  acquisitions  of  territory, 
towards  the  actual  occupants  of  the  soil.  In  the  9th  article 
of  the  treaty  of  1794  with  Great  Britain,  it  wa?  agreed  "  that 
British  subjects  who  now  hold  lands  in  territories  of  the  United 
States  shall  continue  to  hold  them  according  to  the  nature  and 
tenures  of  their  respective  estates."  In  the  treaty  of  cession 
by  Spain  to  the  United  States,  of  East  and  West  Florida,  it 
was  stipulated  that  previous  grants  of  land  by  the  Spanish 
government  should  be  confirmed  to  the  persons  in  possess io7i. 
In  the  treaty  for  the  cession  of  Louisiana  by  France,  it  was 
agreed  by  the  United  States  that  the  private  rights  and  inter- 
ests of  land  should  be  secure,  and  the  inhabitants  protected  in 
their  property.  By  these  treaties,  and  the  acts  of  Congress 
founded  upon  them,  the  United  States  has  acknowledged  that 
certain  rights  of  property  were  acquired  by  the  actual  occu- 


212 


// 


/. 


pation  and  improvement  of  land  before  unappropriated  from 
the  public  domain. 

The  terms  of  the  treaty  of  1846  clearly  show  that  the  Uni- 
ted States  had  simply  in  view  the  continuance  of  its  estab- 
plishcd  policy  towards  thn  occupants  of  the  soil.  The  rights 
to  be  respected  were  onh  territorial  rights,  for  the  treaty  de- 
clares that  in  future  appropriations  of  the  territory  the  pos- 
sessory rights,  &c.,  are  to  be  respected.  These  rights  have 
relation  only  to  the  '^'■appropriation"  of  territory.  The  occa- 
sion for  respecting  them  does  not  arise  until  such  appropriation 
is  made. 

Again,  it  ia  \\\e  possessory  rights  relating  to  our  interfering* 
with  the  appropriation  of  territory  which  are  to  be  respected. 
The  term  "possessory"  is  either  one  of  surplusage  or  limita- 
tion. If  the  former,  which  seems  to  be  the  view  assumed  by 
the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  and  the  counsel  whose  opinions 
are  given  in  the  pamphlet  alluded  to,  the  meaning  of  the  pro- 
vision is  that  all  the  rights  which  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company 
possessed  at  the  date  of  the  treaty  are  to  be  respected.  The 
effect  of  this  construction  would  be  to  admit  the  right  of  the 
company  to  make  laws,  to  have  civil  and  criminal  jurisdiction, 
and  to  have  the  exclusive  right  of  trade;  all  which  rights  the 
company  possessed  under  their  charter  at  the  date  of  the 
treaty.  This  provision,  then,  would  invest  the  actual  sov- 
ereignty of  the  country  ceded,  not  in  the  United  States,  but 
ill  a  foreign  corporation. 

As  this  construction  is  manifestly  inconsistent  with  the  pur- 
pose of  the  treaty,  the  term  "possessory"  must  be  one  of  lim- 
itation. The  effect  of  this  limitation  is  clearly  determined  by 
the  context.  The  treaty  provides  in  the  same  terms  for  re- 
specting the  possessory  rights  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company, 
and  of  all  British  subjects  who  may  be  in  the  occupation  of 
land  lawfully  acquired.  The  precise  language  is — "  In  future 
appropriations  of  the  territory  south  of  the  49th  parallel  of 
north  latitude,  as  provided  in  the  first  article  of  this  treaty, 
the  possessory  rights  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  and  of 
all  British  subjects  who  may  be  already  in  the  occupation  of 


\ 


218 


by 
re- 


>^, 


land  or  other  property  lawfully  acquired  within  the  said  terri- 
tory shall  be  respected." 

The  Hudson's  Bay  Company  stand  on  the  same  footing  as 
all  British  subjects  already  in  the  occupation  of  land.  The 
possessory  rights  of  all  are  such  as  are  derived  from  the  occu- 
pation of  the  land,  and  are  limited  to  them.  If  other  corpo- 
rations established  by  law,  having  similar  possessory  rights, 
had  existed  in  the  territory,  the  language  of  the  treaty  would 
obviously  have  been  "the  possessory  rights  of  all  British  cor- 
porations and  subjects  who  may  be  already  in  the  occupation, 
&c.,  are  to  be  respected."  The  express  mention  of  the  Hud- 
son's Bay  Company  cannot  be  considered  as  establishing  a 
distinction  between  its  possessory  rights  and  those  of  British 
subjects,  derived  from  occupation  in  the  absence  of  any  lan- 
guage defining  such  a  distinction.  The  plenipotentiaries  on 
the  part  of  Great  Britain  could  not  have  been  regardless  of 
ibo  interests  or  ignorant  of  the  nature  of  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company,  and  would  not  have  failed  to  secure  the  vast  rights 
now  claimed  by  terms  admitting  of  no  doubtful  interpretation, 
if  such  had  been  their  purpose.  ••     > 

The  circumstance  that  express  provision  is  made  in  another 
article  for  spcuring  the  interests  of  the  Puget's  Sound  Agri- 
cultural Company,  cannot  be  regarded  as  indicating  a  distinc- 
tion between  the  rights  of  these  Companies,  or  between  these 
Companies  and  individuals.  As  there  is  reason  to  believe  that 
the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company  is  an  informal  asso- 
ciation, and  has  no  legal  corporate  existence,  it  seems  to  have 
been  specially  mentioned  in  the  treaty  for  the  purpose  of 
securing  its  future  recognition,  notwithstanding  the  want  of 
legal  formality  in  its  original  institution. 

In  defining  the  possessory  rights  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Com- 
pany, the  United  States  are  to  regard  them  in  the  same  light 
as  those  of  individuals  who  have  actually  occupied  lands.  It 
is  clear  that  the  possessory  rights  of  such  individuals  would 
be  limited  to  actual  erections,  enclosures,  and  lands  cultivated 
and  improved.  These  rights  are  held  by  mere  occupancy. 
They  vest  no  interest  in  the  soil,  and  are  lost  the  moment  such 
occupancy  is  abandoned.     It  is  admitted  that  an  entry  into 


K' 


\\ 


214 


/^ 


-x^ 


>■  * 


possession  of  a  tract  of  land,  under  a  deed  containing  specific 
metea  and  bounds,  gives  a  constructive  possession  of  the  whole 
tract,  if  not  in  adverse  possession,  although  there  may  be  no 
fence  or  enclosure  around  the  ambit  of  the  tract,  and  an  actual 
residence  on  only  a  part  of  it.  But  it  is  conceived  that  the 
term  occupation  has  a  more  restricted  meaning,  and  is  applied 
to  lands  and  property  actually  used  and  improved.  It  is  in 
this  sense  that  Blaokstone  and  Locke  use  the  term  in  treating 
of  the  mode  in  which  titles  to  land  were  originally  acquired. 

When  the  established  policy  and  nature  of  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company  are  considered,  it  is  apparent  that  to  allow  them 
to  claim  possessory  rights  over  the  whole  country  north  of  the 
Columbia  river,  and  below  the  49th  parallel  of  latitude,  would 
be  inconsistent  with  the  right  recugnized  by  the  United  States 
and  all  civilized  nations  to  appropriate  for  purposes  of  settle- 
ment and  agriculture  territory  occupied  by  unsettled  and 
sparsely  scattered  hunters  and  fishermen.  The  profits  of  this 
Company  have  been  derived  principally  from  trading  with  the 
Indians  and  scattered  voyagers  and  hunters,  who  have  ex- 
changed the  products  of  the  forests  for  their  goods.  It  has 
been  the  policy  of  the  Company  to  discourage  agricultural 
emigrants,  and  to  keep  the  greater  portion  of  the  territory  a 
mere  wilderness,  or  a  vast  preserve  for  game.  Vattcl  has  ob- 
sdrved  that  the  cultivation  of  the  soil  is  an  obl'gationimpoaed 
by  nature  upon  mankind,  and  he  and  other  writers  upon  nat- 
ural law  place  but  little  value  upon  the  territorial  rights  of 
•people  sparsely  inhabiting  vast  regions,  and  drawing  their 
subsistence  chiefly  from  the  forest;  In  this  view  it  would  be 
difficult  to  distinguish  the  territorial  rights  of  this  Company 
from  those  of  the  people  fast  disappearing  before  the  steps  of 
civilization  on  this  continent. 

In  estimating  the  value  of  the  possessory  rights  of  the  Hud- 
son's Bay  Company,  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  these  rights, 
being  simply  those  of  occupancy  and  incapable  of  being  trans- 
ferred to  purchasers,  must  terminate  at  the  expiration  of  the 
term  during  which  their  privileges  in  the  territory  exist  by 
their  charters.  The  rights  which  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company 
had  in  the  territory  lying  between  the  Columbia  river  and  the 


A. 


Tr 


mmm 


ie  Hud- 

1  rights, 
ti'ans- 
of  the 
nst  by 
impany 
Ind  the 


216 

forty-ninth  parallel  of  north  latitude,  were  not  derived  from 
their  original  charter,  which  gave  thorn  a  perpetual  grant  of 
the  following  named  territories,  viz  :  "All  those  seas,  straits, 
bays,  rivers,  lakes,  crook»,  ond  sounds,  in  whatever  latitude 
they  shall  be,  that  lie  within  the  entrance  of  the  straits  com- 
monly called  IIudBon's  Straits,  together  with  all  the  lands, 
countries,  and  torritoriofl,  upon  the  coasts  and  confines  of  the 
seas,  straits,  bays,  lakofi,  rivors,  creeks,  and  sounds  aforesaid, 
which  are  not  now  actually  possessed  by  any  of  our  subjects, 
or  by  the  subjects  of  any  other  Christian  prince  or  State." 

They  occupied  the  land  in  the  territory  south  of  the  forty- 
ninth  parallel  of  latitude  and  north  of  the  Columbia  river, 
under  the  authority  of  »  grant  bearing  date  December  5, 1821, 
giving  the  Company  "  an  exclusive  right  of  trading  in  all  such 
parts  of  North  America  to  the  northward  and  westward  of 
lands  and  territories  of  the  United  States  as  do  not  form  any 
part  of  our  provinces  of  North  America  or  the  United  States. 
This  grant  was  given  for  a  period  of  twenty-one  years,  at  the 
end  of  which  time  it  was  renewed  for  a  further  period  of  twenty- 
one  years.     As  the  Crown  has  no  power  to  renew  the  charter 
of  a  Company  in  the  territory  of  the  United  States,  and  the 
Company  cannot  transfer  rights  of  occupation,  all  the  pos- 
sessory rights  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  will  be  extin- 
guished irt  the  year  18051.     The  question  addresses  itself  to 
the  liberality  of  the  United  States,  whether  a  broad  view  of 
the  spirit  of  the  tj'cttty  maynot  render  it  expedient  to  disre- 
gard the  limitations  of  the  grant,  and  to  concede  to  the  Com- 
pany the  same  perpetual  rights  as  to  individuals. 

It  is  pretended  that  by  the  fourth  article  of  the  treaty  of 
184G,  the  lands  and  farms  of  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural 
Company  are  confirmed  to  them  to  the  full  extent  of  their 
claims,  and  that  this  provision  vests  the  absolute  fee  of  such 
farms  and  land  in  the  Company,  subject  only  to  the  right  of 
purchase  by  the  United  States.  This  view  I  conceive  to  be 
wholly  inconsistent  witli  the  terms  of  the  treaty. 

The  fourth  article  of  the  treaty  is  as  follows :  "  The  farms, 
lands,  and  other  property  of  every  description  belonging  to 
the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company,  on  the  north  side 
of  the  Columbia  river,  shall  be  confirmed  to  the  said  Com- 


■\' 


/... 


)'  J 


i! 


f 


(/• 


!i 


210 

pany.  In  oaso,  however,  the  vituation  of  those  farms  and  lands 
should  be  considered  by  the  United  States  Oovernment  to  be  of 
public  and  political  importanoo,  and  the  United  States  Govern- 
ment should  signify  a  desire  to  obtain  possession  of  the  whole  or 
any  part  thereof,  the  property  so  required  shall  be  transferred 
to  the  said  Government  at  a  proper  valuation  to  be  agreed  upon 
by  the  parties." 

In  the  case  of  Foster  k  Elam  vt.  Neilson,  (2  Peters,  314,) 
the  SuprcDie  Court  of  the  United, t^tates  carefully  considered 
the  ciToct  of  a  provision  in  the  eighth  article  of  the  treaty  with 
Spain  of  1819,  containing  terms  similar  to  those  of  the  fourth 
article  of  the  treaty  of  1840.  In  this  case,  the  Court  say, 
**  Whatever  difference  may  exist  respecting  the  effect  of  the 
ratification,  in  whatever  sense  it  may  be  understood,  we  think 
that  the  sound  construction  of  the  eighth  article  will  not  enable 
this  Court  to  apply  its  provisions  to  the  present  case.  The 
words  of  the  article  are:  'All  the  grants  of  land  made  before 
January  24,  1818,  by  his  Catholio  majesty,  &c.,  shall  be  rati- 
fied and  confirmed  to  the  persons  in  possession  of  the  lands  to 
the  same  extent  that  the  same  grants  would  be  valid  if  the 
territories  had  remained  under  the  dominion  of  his  Catholic 
majesty.'  Do  these  words  act  directly  on  the  grants,  so  as  to 
give  validity  to  those  not  otherwise  valid,  or  do  they  pledge 
the  faith  of  the  United  States  to  pass  acts  which  shall  ratify 
and  confirm  them. 

''A  treaty  is,  in  its  nature,  a  contract  between  two  nations. 
It  does  not  generally  effect,  of  itself,  the  object  to  be  accom- 
plished, especially  so  far  as  its  operation  is  infra-territorial; 
but  it  is  carried  into  execution  by  the  sovereign  power  of  the 
respective  parties  to  the  instrument. 

*'In  the  United  States  a  different  principle  is  established. 
Our  Constitution  declares  a  treaty  to  bo  the  law  of  the  land. 
It  is  consequently  to  be  regarded  in  courts  of  justice  as  equiv- 
alent to  an  act  of  the  legislature  whenever  it  operates  of  itself 
without  the  aid  of  any  legislative  provision.  But  when  the 
terms  of  the  stipulation  import  a  contract,  when  either  of  the 
parties  engages  to  perform  a  particular  act,  the  treaty  ad- 
dresses itself  to  the  political,  not  to  the  Judicial,  department, 


217 


and  the  legislature  must  execute  the  contract  before  it  can  be« 
come  a  rule  for  the  Court. 

"  The  article  under  consideration  does  not  declare  that  all  the 
grants  made  by  his  Catholic  majesty  before  the  24th  of  Janu- 
ary, 1818,  shall  be  valid  to  the  same  extent  as  if  the  ceded 
territories  had  remained  under  his  dominion.  It  does  not  say 
that  these  grants  are  hereby  confirmed.  Had  such  been  its 
language,  it  would- have  acted  directly  upon  the  subject,  and 
would  have  repealed  those  acts  of  Congress  which  are  repug- 
nant to  it;  but  its  language  is,  that  those  grunts  shall  be  rati- 
fied and  confirmed  to  the  person  in  possession.  This  seems  to 
be  the  language  of  contract,  and,  if  it  is,  the  ratification  and 
confirmation  which  are  promised  must  be  the  act  of  the  legis- 
lature. Until  such  act  is  passed,  the  Court  is  not  at  liberty 
to  disregard  the  existing  laws  on  the  subject."  The  Court 
then  proceed  to  refer  to  various  acts  of  Congress,  showing  that 
Congress  appear  to  have  understood  this  article  as  understood 
by  the  Court. 

Afterwards,  in  the  case  of  the  United  States  vs.  Perchman, 
(7  Peters,  p.  86,)  in  reviewing  these  words  of  the  8th  article 
of  the  treaty  of  1819,  the  Court  held  that  the  words  used  were 
words  of  present  confirmation  by  the  treaty  whore  the  land 
had  been  rightfully  granted  before  the  cession.  In  the  case 
of  Garcia  vs.  Lee,  (12  Peters,  520,)  the  Court  reviewed  their 
opinion  in  the  case  of  the  United  States  vs.  Perchman,  and 
say:  "This  language  was,  however,  applied  by  the  Court,  and 
intended  to  apply  to  grants  made  in  a  territory  which  belonged 
to  Spain  at  the  time  of  the  grant.  It  was  in  relation  to  a 
grant  of  land  in  Florida  which  unquestionably  belonged  to 
Spain  at  the  time  the  grant  was  made,  and  where  the  Spanish 
authorities  had  an  undoubted  right  to  grant  until  the  cession 
of  1819.  It  is  of  such  grants  that  the  Court  speak  when  they 
declare  them  to  be  confirmed  and  protected  by  the  true  con- 
struction of  the  treaty,  and  that  they  do  not  need  the  aid  of 
an  act  of  Congress  to  ratify  apd  confirm  the  title  of  the  pur- 
chaser. 

"But  they  do  not,  in  part  of  the  last-mentioned  case,  apply 
this  principle  to  grants  made  by  Spain  within  the  limits  of 


s\ 


I 


u 


T 


218 

Louisiana  in  the  territory  which  belonged  to  the  United  States 
according  to  the  true  boundary." 

This  case  is  conclusive  as  to  the  point  in  question.  The 
territory  north  of  the  Columbia  river,  beyond  the  forty-ninth 
parallel  of  latitude,  had  always  been  claimed  by  the  United 
States.  The  treaty  of  1846  determined  that  the  true  bound- 
ary was  the  forty-ninth  parallel  of  north  latitude,  and  that 
the  territory  south  of  that  parallel  belonged  to  the  United 
States.  The  British  authorities  had  no  right  to  grant  in  that 
territory.  The  farms  and  lands  of  the  Puget's  Sound,  Agri- 
cultural Company,  by  the  principle  of  those  decisions,  are  not 
confirmed,  and  tho  "confirmation  promised  must  bo  the  act  of 
the  legislature." 

Both  of  the  Companies  referred  to  claim  certain  rights  f'  - 
tinct  from  the  lands  actually  occupied  ond  improved  by  icm, 
such  as  the  right  of  felling  timber  in  the  forests,  and  the  right 
of  grazing  large  tracts  of  unenclosed  pasture  and  prairie  lands 
with  immense  herds  of  cattle  and  flocks  of  sheep. 

The  right  of  felling  timber  would  seem  to  be  limited  to  the 
right  of  estovers,  as  known  in  the  common  law,  which  would 
give  them  simply  the  right  to  use  tim.berfor  fuel,  for  building, 
and  farm  purposes,  on  the  lands  actually  improved  or  enclosed 
by  them,  and  would  give  them  no  right  to  appropriate  timber 
for  sale  or  exportation. 

Vast  herds  of  cattle  and  flocks  of  sheep,  claimed  to  belong 
to  these  Companies,  which  have  become  totally  wild  and  unre- 
claimed, and  are  now  as  truly /crop  natures  as  the  native  buffalo 
and  deor,  are  suffered  to  roam  over  the  territory,  eating  bare 
the  pastures,  sftid  invading  the  fields  of  the  settlers.  It  is 
clear  that  in  using  unappropriated  lands  for  pasturage,  these^ 
Companies  should  not  have  the  exclusive  use  of  such  lands, 
and  should  be  restricted  to  the  right  of  common  pasture  known 
in  the  English  common  law,  which  would  give  them  no  exclu- 
sive privileges,  and  would  rosti  ,ct  their  cattle  and  sheep  to  the 
number  actually  levant  ef  .1  lehant  upon  the  farms  which  they 
have  enclosed  and  improved. 

I  have  been  guided  by  the  views  above  presented  in  seeking 
information  relative  to  the  property  of  these  Companies  within 


^jwXftiti  av^  ixjluvym'm\-  v 


219 


\.     ^, 


«  ■  > 


ang 
lin 


the  Torritoriefl  of  Washington  and  Oregon,  and  in  making  an 
estimate  of  its  value,  and  now  proceed  to  give  the  statements 
and  estimates  demanded  by  your  instructions. 

These  statements  are  mostly  founded  upon  personal  observa- 
tion, as  I  have  visited,  myself,  Fort  Colvile,  Fort  Walla- Walla, 
Fort  Vancouver,  the  granary  at  the  mouth  of  the  Cowlitz,  the 
Cowlitz  Farms,  and  Fort  Nisqually.  The  gentlemen  connected 
with  mo  in  the  recent  exploration  visited  Fort  IlaU,  the  Flat- 
head Post,  and  Fort  Okanagiin.  The  remaining  posts  and 
property,  it  will  be  observed,  are  inconsiderable  in  character 
and  extent.  I  am  indebted  to  Colonel  Isaac  N.  Ebey  and 
George  Oibbs,  Esq.,  for  valuable  notes,  descriptive  of  these 
possessions. 

The  principal  establishment  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company, 
within  the  territory  of  the  United  States,  is  Fort  Vancouver, 
on  the  Columbia  river.  This  is  the  parent  establishment  whence 
the  others  are  supplied  with  goods. 

The  post  is  enclosed  by  a  stockade  of  200  by  175  yards, 
twelve  fee',  in  height,  and  is  defended  by  bastions  on  the  north- 
west and  southeast  angles,  mounted  with  cannon.  Within  are 
the  governor's  house,  two  smaller  buildings  used  by  clerks,  a 
range  of  dwellings  for  families,  and  five  two-story  warehouses, 
besides  offices.  Without  there  is  a  large  warehouse,  at  present 
hired  by  the  United  States.  These  are  all  built  of  square  logs, 
framed  together.  The  buildings  within  the  enclosure  are  old 
and  considerably  decayed,  only  the  repairs  necessary  to  keep 
them  in  tenantable  order  having  of  late  years  been  expended. 
Outside  the  enclosure  are  about  twenty  cabins,  occupied  by 
servants,  Kanakas,  and  Indians.  These  cabins  are,  with  few 
exceptions,  built  of  slabs.  Most  of  them  are  untenanted  and 
left  to  decay. 

The  lands  in  cultivation  about  Fort  Vancouver,  at  the  date 
of  the  treaty,  did  not  exceed  two  hundred  and  fifty  acres. 
Since  that  time  many  of  the  inclosures  have  been  broken  up, 
and  lands  formerly  cultivated  have  become  a  waste. 

Besides  their  broad  claim  to  the  whole  territory,  the  Hud- 
son's Bay  Company  make  a  particular  claim  to  sevoral  tracts 
B 


220 


in  the  vicinity  of  Fort  Vancouver :  first,  the  plain  on  which 
the  fort  and  the  United  States  barracks  are  situated,  vrith  a 
small  plain  behind  it,  making  in  all  a  tract  of  about  four  miles 
square.  Adjoining  this,  above  Fort  Vancouver,  they  claim 
another  tract,  known  as  the  "  Mill  claim,"  two  and  a  half  by 
three-quarter  miles  square.  On  this  claim  is  a  saw-mill,  now 
in  operation,  which  has  been  built  since  the  treaty.  A  grist- 
mill was  erected  in  1836,  but  is  now  nearly  worthless.  Anew 
mill  frame  was  erected  at  this  place  in  1847,  but  has  never  been 
completed.  At  this  mill  there  is  a  storehouse  and  miller's 
house,  both  built  of  logs  with  shingle  roofs. 

In  the  vicinity  of  these  mills,  at  the  date  of  the  treaty,  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company  had  about  two  thousand  acres  of  land 
under  cultivation,  with  farm  houses,  barns,  and  outbuildings. 
Since  that  period  the  cultivated  land  and  inclosures  have  been 
reduced  to  about  a  thousand  acres,  and  the  buildings  have  been 
left  to  decay. 

These,  as  far  as  I  could  ascertain,  embrace  the  whole  of  the 
improvements  of  the  Company  in  the  vicinity  of  Fort  Van- 
couver, if  we  except  a  few  sheep-pens,  long  since  abandoned, 
which  were  at  one  time  on  the  possessions  below  the  fort. 

I  estimate  the  value  of  the  erections  and  improvements,  in 
and  about  Fort  Vancouver,  and  those  about  the  saw  and  grist- 
mill, including  the  mills,  dwelling-houses,  storehouses,  farms, 
barns,  &c.,  at  the  sum  of  fifty  thousand  dollars. 

The  business  at  this  post  has  changed  with  the  condition  of 
the  country  since  the  treaty,  and  is  now  almost  entirely  mer- 
cantile and  carried  on  with  the  settlers.  Comparatively  a  small 
amount  of  Indian  goods  is  now  imported,  that  description  of 
merchandise  being  sent  to  the  posts  in  the  British  territory  by 
way  of  Victoria.  What  trade  with  the  Indians  is  carried  on 
here  is  the  ordinary  retail  trade  of  country  stores,  and  for 
cash.  The  amount  of  the  general  business  of  the  Company  in 
this  territory  may  be  gathered  from  their  imports  during  1853. 

These  consisted  of  one  cargo  of  assorted  American  goods 
from  New  York,  and  another,  valued  at  about  .£19,000,  from 
London,  paying  duties  to  the  amount  of  nearly  $24,000.    A 


I 


221 


considerable  portion  of  these  were  sold  on  commission  at  Port- 
land, Oregon  City,  and  other  places  in  the  Willamette  Valley. 

The  next  post  above  Vancouver  is  Fort  Walla-W«».l!a,  on  the 
Columbia  river,  below  the  en^.rance  of  the  Snake.  There  are 
here  three  or  four  one-story  adobe  buildings,  with  offices,  en- 
closed by  a  wall  of  the  same  material,  some  thirty-five  yards 
on  each  side,  having  a  bastion  at  one  angle.  It  is  almost 
wholly  valueless,  except  as  a  station,  where  horses  can  be  kept 
for  the  trains.  There  is,  indeed,  some  trade  with  the  Indians, 
chiefly  in  cash,  but  not  enough  to  warrant  the  maintenance  of 
the  post  for  that  purpose  alone.  The  fort  is  in  very  indifier- 
ent  repair,  and  the  country  in  the  immediate  neighborhood  a 
desert  of  drifting  sand.  The  force  at  this  post  consists  of  a 
chief  clerk,  one  interpreter,  two  traders,  and  six  men,  Cana- 
dians and  Indians. 

Some  eighteen  or  twenty  miles  up  the  Walla-Walla  river  is 
a  so-called  farm,  on  which  are  two  small  hovels,  each  consist- 
ing of  a  single  room,  occupied  by  a  servant  and  an  Indian 
employed  as  herdsman.  There  was  formerly  a  dam  at  this 
place  for  irrigation,  but  it  is  broken  down.  Five  thousand 
dollars  I  consider  a  large  estimate  for  the  value  of  these  two 
establishments. 

Fort  Colvile,  upon  ihe  Columbia,  above  Kettle  Falls,  is  next 
in  importance  to  Fort  Vancouver,  though  far  inferior  to  it  in 
extent.  It  is  situated  on  the  second  terrace  at  some  distance 
back  from  the  river,  the  lower  terrace  being  in  part  flooded 
during  the  freshets.  The  buildings  consist  of  a  dwelling-house, 
three  or  four  storehouses,  and  some  smaller  buildings,  used  as 
blackamith  shops,  &c.,  all  of  one  story,  and  constructed  of 
squared  logs.  The  whole  was  once  surrounded  by  a  stockade, 
forming  a  -tpare  of  about  seventy  yards  on  each  side.  This 
has  leen  rr  uoved,  except  on  the  north  side,  where  it  encloses 
a  narrow  yard  containing  offices.  One  bastion  remains.  About 
thirty  yards  in  the  rear  of  this  square  are  the  cattle  yards, 
hay  fihedfl,  ^c,  enclosing  a  space  of  forty  by  sixty  yards, 
roughly  fenced  in,  and  the  sheds  covered  with  bark.  On  the 
left  jf  the  front  are  seven  huts,  occupied  by  the  lower  em- 
^Ic/es  of  the  company.     They  are  of  rude  construction,  and 


222 


\i 


much  decayed.  On  the  right  of  the  square,  in  the  roar,  at  a 
distance  of  a  few  hundred  yards,  are  three  more  buildings, 
used  for  storing  produce.  At  this  post  the  barges  used  by  the 
Company  for  the  navigation  of  the  Columbia  river  are  built. 

Besides  the  principal  establishment,  there  is  a  cattle-post 
about  nine  miles  distant,  on  the  stream  laid  down  as  the  Slaun- 
te-us,  and  a  grist-mill  of  one  pair  of  stones,  three  "Mies  off  on 
the  same  stream.  The  latter  is  in  good  order.  Here  formerly 
the  flour  for  the  northern  posts  was  ground  from  wheat  raised 
on  the  Company's  farms.  The  mill  is  still  used  by  the  farniers 
of  the  Colvile  Valley,  and  by  the  Spokane  Indians,  who  bring 
here  their  wheat  from  a  distance  of  seventy  miles.  The  farm 
at  this  point  was  once  pretty  extensive,  but  only  a  small  por- 
tion is  cultivated  at  present.  ^ 

Fort  Colvile  was  orice  the  post  of  a  chief  factor,  the  highest 
officer  in  charge  of  a  station,  and  here  the  annual  accounts  of 
the  whole  country  were  consolidated  previous  to  transmipsi  n 
across  the  mountains.  The  present  force  consists  only  of  ;>. 
chief  clerk,  a  trader,  and  about  twenty  Canadians  and  Iroquois 
Indians. 

I  estimate  the  value  of  Fort  Colvile  and  the  mill,  with  the 
improvements,  at  twenty-five  thousand  dollars. 

Belo,w  Fort  Colvilo  is  Fort  Okanagan,  situated  on  a  level 
plain  on  the  right  bahk  of  the  Columbia,  a  little  above  the 
mouth  of  the  Okinakane  river,  and  not  far  from  the  site  of 
one  of  Mr.  Astor's  posts.  The  fort  consists  of  three  small 
houses,  with  a  stockade.  There  were  formerly  some  out-build- 
ings, but  they  have  been  suffered  to  decay.  There  is  no 
appearance  here  of  trade,  and  no  goods  are  on  hand.  A  few 
furs  only  are  taken,  and  the  post  does  not  probably  pay  its 
expenses. 

Fort  Kootonay,  upon  the  great  bend  of  the  Flatbow  river, 
and  not  far  from  the  Flathead  lake,  is  an  inferior  post,  in 
charge  of  a  Canadian  as  trader  and  postmaster,  and  one  Cana- 
dian and  a  half-breed  under  him.  There  is  also  a  post  called 
the  Flathead  post,  east  of  the  Flathead*  lake,  on  one  of  its 
small  tributaries.  The  three  last  named  posts,  in  connection 
with  the  right  of  pasturage  on  Clarke's  Fork,  enjoyed  by  the 


223 


U 


d 

ts 


Company  in  common  with  the  Indians,  I  estimate  at  five  thou- 
sand dollars. 

The  above  constitute  all  the  posts  of  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company,  situated  in  Washington  Territory,  east  of  the  Cas- 
cades, and  north  of  the  46th  degree. 

There  are  in  Oregon  Territory  and  east  of  the  mountains 
only  two  posts.  Fort  Hall,  at  the  head  of  the  Snake  river, 
Boise,  upon  the  same,  nearly  opposite  the  mouth  of  the  Owy- 
hee. The  latter  is  merely  a  stopping  place,  occupied  by  a 
trader  and  a  few  Kanakas.  The  former  is  a  more  important 
one,  from  its  opportunities  for  trade  with  the  emigrants  and 
with  the  Salt  Lake.  Lieutenant  MuUan,  who  visited  this  post 
in  the  winter,  found  a  chief  clerk  in  charge,  and  the  supplies 
limited ;  it  is  only  a  third  rate  post.  Considering  the  favor- 
able position  of  these  two  posts,  I  estimate  them  at  fifteen 
thousand  dollars. 

West  of  the  Cascades,  in  Oregon  Territory,  the  principal 
post  is  Fort  Umpqua,  on  the  Umpqua  river.  This  was  de- 
stroyed by  fire  two  or  three  years  since. 

The  other  possessions  consist  of  a  house  and  granary  at 
Champoeg,  on  the  Willamette ;  one  acre  of  ground  below  the 
falls  at  Oregon  city,  purchased  from  an  American ;  a  farm  of 
six  hundred  and  forty  acres,  on  Sauvie's  island,  at  the  mouth 
of  the  Willamette,  with  a  house, dairy,  and  garden;  the  build- 
ings about  six  years  old.  The  old  buildings  at  Astoria  are  of 
no  value  whatever. 

I  estimate  the  value  of  the  last  posts,  lands,  and  improve- 
ments, at  fifteen  thousand  dollars. 

In  Washington  Territory,  west  of  the  Cascades,  the  only 
post  of  the  Company  of  any  importance  is  Fort  Nisqually,  on 
land  claimed  by  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company.  It 
is  situated  at  some  distance  from  the  water,  on  high,  undulat- 
ing prairie,  and  is  a  cluster  of  small  buildings,  of  no  great 
value,  within  a  stockade.  The  trade  here  is  principally  with 
the  settlers.  Besides  this,  there  is  a  granary  and  about  five 
acres  of  land  two  miles  above  the  mouth  of  the  Cowlitz  river 
— a  tract  of  land  on  Cape  Disappointment,  occupied  by  an  old 
servant,  and  a  small  store  and  lot  of  ground  near  Chinook. 


.»»,i;kJBiMriMMiMan«wk.'«Mw4 .£.»>«.*  i.«v  :»•*  -^'' 


224 

Fort  Nisqually  will  be  estimated  in  connection  with  the  property 
of  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company.  The  property 
at  the  mouth  of  the  Cowlitz,  on  Cape  Disappointment  and 
near  Chinook,  I  estimate  at  five  thousand  dollars. 

With  the  exception  of  Fort  Vancouver,  it  is  believed  that 
none  of  the  posts  above  mentioned  are  worth  maintaining  for 
any  other  purpose  than  that  of  holding  the  property  until  a 
sale  can  be  eflfected.  The  condition  of  the  whole  country  is 
completely  changed  since  they  were  established,  the  Company 
being  now  little  else  than  general  merchants.  At  all  points  of 
general  importance,  they  meet  with  competition  from  our  own 
citizens;  and,  whenever  it  wil'  :cpay  the  enterprise,  the  same 
competition  will  follow  ther .  elsewhere. 

I  do  not  deem  it  important  that  the  rights  of  the  Company 
in  the  fjy.r'^^-orv  should  be  extinguished,  on  account  of  their 
undue  or  u  rable  influence  upon  the  Indians.     The  rela- 

tions of  the  ompany  with  the  Indians,  though  not  less 
friendly,  are  far  less  intimate  than  they  have  been.  Even  the 
more  distant  tribes  now  frequent  the  towns;  attracted  partly 
by  novelty  and  partly  by  the  opportunities  afforded  for  earn- 
ing money  by  labor.  Most  of  them  comprehend  that  the  in- 
fluence of  the  Company  has  departed. 

Although  the  Company,  as  traders,  have  endeavored  to 
secure  themsel/es  every  advantage,  and  although  their  action, 
in  some  cases  has  borne  heavily  upon  the  settlers,  in  every  mat- 
ter between  a  white  man  and  an  Indian,  they  have  sustained 
the  white,  of  whatever  nation. 

In  this  connection  I  deem  it  due  to  the  Company  to  refer  to 
an  incident  reflecting  the  highest  credit  upon  an  ofiicer  of  the 
Company,  which  occurred  during  the  winters  of  1846-'47,  and 
the  particulars  of  which  I  have  from  Mr.  Stanley,  who  was  a 
personal  witness  of  the  transaction.  The  Cayuse  Indians 
made  an  incursion  upon  the  mission  of  Dr.  Whitman  on  the 
Walla-Walla  river;  killed  Dr.  Whitman  and  his  wife,  and  cap- 
tured several  women  and  children.  A  factor,  one  or  two  Cath- 
olic priests,  and  Mr.  Stanley,  since  artist  of  the  expedition 
which  I  commanded,  were  confined  at  Fort  Walla- Walla  by 
the  hostility  of  the  Indians.     As  soon  as  this  event  was  known 


l\ 


i.\ 


it 


225 

at  Fort  Vancouver,  Governor  Ogden,  the  chief  factor  of  the  Com- 
pany, immediately  proceeded  to  Walla-Walla,  and  a^  the  risk 
of  his  own  life  redeemed  the  captives  with  goods  which  he  had 
carried  with  him  for  that  purpose.  For  the  expenditure  on 
this  occasion,  it  may  he  mentioned,  the  Company  have  never 
requested  or  received  payment. 

The  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company  claim  a  tract  of 
land  at  what  is  called  the  Cowlitz  Farms.  The  quantity  of 
land  claimed  is  eight  thousand  acres,  more  or  less.  According 
to  the  plat  deposited  at  the  Surveyor  General's  office,  their 
tract  contains  only  about  three  thousand  acres.  Some  years 
back  about  fifteen  hundred  acres  of  land  were  under  cultiva- 
tion ;  but  of  late  years  the  cultivation  of  land  has  been  almost 
entirely  abandoned.  The  fences  have  been  allowed  to  go  to 
decay;  much  of  the  hay  even  has  not  been  cut.  The  land, 
however,  is  of  excellent  character,  not  being  surpassed  by  any 
in  the  Territory.  The  improvements  and  land  I  estimate  at 
twenty-five  thousand  dollars. 

The  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company  claim  from  near 
the  Nisqually  to  the  Puyallup  rivers,  and  from  the  shores  of 
Puget's  Sound  to  the  dividing  line  of  the  Cascades,  a  tract  of 
land  some  sixteen  miles  by  fifty  miles,  containing  some  eight 
hundred  square  miles,  much  of  which  has  never  even  been 
penetrated  by  a  white  man.  This  tract  is  claimed  in  conse- 
quence of  being  used  as  a  range  for  cattle  and  sheep  belong- 
ing to  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company.  It  is  asserted 
that  some  five  thousand  cattle  and  sixteen  thousand  sheep  roam 
at  large  on  this  tract.  The  number  is  not  exactly  known,  and 
is  probably  much  over-estimated.  The  sheep  are  said  to  be 
mostly  under  the  charge  of  shepherds,  but  the  great  propor- 
tion of  the  cattle  are  now  in  a  state  of  nature.  These  cattle 
and  sheep  have  furnished  important  supplies  to  the  settlements 
on  Puget's  Sound.  The  post  is  frequently  visited  by  steamers 
belonging  to  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  which  carry  away 
supplies  of  cattle  and  sheep  for  Vancouver  Island.  The  soil 
of  this  tract  in  the  vicinity  of  Puget's  Sound  is  inferior,  but, 
judging  from  the  developments  made  in  other  portions  of  the 
territory,  much  good  laud  will  be  found  near  the  mountain 


^«  •vtWuMa^^ 


j.*fciejs:£X«»>i^*M-i^'>»"' 


] 


I 


226 

slopes.  Estimating  the  quantity  of  pasturage  required  for 
the  nunAer  of  sheep  and  cattle  said  to  range  on  this  tract, 
and  throwing  in  favor  of  the  Compan  j  the  grave  doubt  whether 
they  have  not  lost  the  ownership  of  the  greater  number  of  the 
cattle,  I  estimate  this  property  at  one  hundred  and  fifty  thou- 
sand dollars. 

Recapitulation  of  .poaaessions  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company^ 
and  the  PugeV%  Sound  Agricultural  Qomj  <  ■^,  x  /'■':,  t,ne 
Territories  of  Washington  and  Oregon,  and  estimates  of  value. 

Possessions  of  Hudson's  Bay  Comp.  ny: 

Fort  Vancouver  and  mill $50,000  00 

Walla-Walla  and  vicinity,  ....  6,000  00 
Fort  Colvile,  mill,  and  improvements,  .  26,000  00 
Posts  on  Flatbow  and  Flathead  rivers,  and 

Fort  Okanagan, 6,000  00 

Fort  Hall  and  Fort  Bois^,  in  Oregon,  east  of 

the  Cascades, 15,000  00 

Fort  Umpqua,  and  other  property  in  Oregon, 

east  of  the  Cascades,  ....  16,000  00 
Property  at  the  mouth  of  the  Cowlitz,  on 

Cape  Disappointment,  and  near  Chinook,        6,000  00 

Property  of  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Com- 
pany in  Washington  Territory: 

Fort  Ni;.qually, 150,000  00 

Cowlitz  farms, 30,000  00 


V 


300,000  00 


I  have  given  the  above  valuation  as  the  most  which,  in  my 
opinion,  the  United  States  should  pay  for  the  purpose  of  ex- 
tinguishing all  the  rights  of  these  Companies  within  their  ter- 
ritory. I  have  given  in  all  cases  a  liberal  estimate,  and  some- 
what above  that  of  the  most  experienced  gentlemen  I  have 
consulted.  No  obligation  or  imperative  necessity  is  imposed 
upon  the  United  States  to  extinguish  these  rights  or  purchase 


227 


this  property.  But  the  United  States  are  bound  to  take  im- 
mediate steps  for  making  the  confirmations  promised  in  tho 
treaty  of  1846.  Commissioners  should  be  appointed  by  an  act 
of  Congress,  having  powers  and  duties  similar  to  those  con- 
ferred in  pursuance  of  like  treaty  provisions.  The  practice 
has  been  to  assign  this  duty  to  Governors  of  Territories,  who 
are  presumed  to  be  well  fitted  by  their  public  position  and 
their  local  knowledge  and  experience,  or  to  appoint  special 
commissioners.  It  is  indispensable  that  confirmations  should 
be  made  before  a  purchase  is  efi'ected.  The  act  known  as  the 
Donation  Law  of  September  27,  1850,  granted  to  every  white 
settler  or  occupant  of  the  public  lands  within  the  Territory  of 
Oregon,  being  an  American  citizen,  or  having  declared  his  in- 
tention to  become  a  citizen,  residing  within  the  Territory  on 
or  before  the  first  day  of  December,  1850,  and  who  shr '1  have 
resided  upon  and  cultivated  the  land  upon  which  he  had  set- 
tled for  four  consecutive  years,  the  quantity  of  one-half  sec- 
tion of  three  hundred  and  twenty  acres  of  land,  and  if  married 
within  one  year  from  the  first  day  of  December,  1850,  one 
section  of  six  hundred  and  forty  acres,  one-half  to  himself  and 
the  other  half  to  his  wife. 

Many  of  the  chief  servants  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company 
claim  as  individuals  under  this  law  the  very  tracts  claimed  by 
the  Company.  The  tract  upon  which  Fort  Vancouver  stands, 
to  the  extent  of  six  hundred  and  forty  acres,  is  claimed  by  a 
chief  clerk  of  the  Company  residing  at  the  fort.  These  claims 
have  been  made  with  a  view  of  securing  the  lauds  to  servants 
of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  even  if  the  United  States 
should  extinguish  by  purchase  the  rights  of  the  Company.  It 
is  important  that  the  extent  and  boundaries  of  the  lands  of 
the  Companies  should  be  fixed  by  confirmation,  in  order  that 
the  Companies  should  be  able  to  give  a  title  to  the  United 
State  which  might  bar  the  settlers'  claims.  The  commission- 
ers should  be  directed  to  make  a  fair  estimate  of  the  value  of 
the  possessions  of  the  Companies,  and  report  the  same  to  Con- 
gress, as  a  basis  for  its  action,  in  case  a  purchase  should  be 
deemed  expedient. 

It  is  hoped  that  this  subject  will  receive  the  immediate  atten- 


\ 


) 


1^ 


\\ 


'/■ 


/, 


)  228 

tion  of  Congress,  and  that,  while  all  the  obligations  of  plighted 
faith  are  redeemed,  the  embarrassments  which  impede  the  set- 
tlement of  this  magnificent  Territory  may  be  speedily  removed. 
I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  respectfully,  your  obedient  ser- 
vant, 

Isaac  I.  Stevens, 

Governor  of  the  Territory  of  Washington. 

N.  B. — I  enclose  copies  of  a  letter  from  W.  F.  Tolmie,  Esq., 
agent  of  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company,  dated  De- 
cember 27, 1853,  protesting  against  the  views  presented  in  my 
circular  letter  of  December  20, 1853,  and  of  my  answer  thereto, 
dated  January  9,  1854,  in  which  those  views  are  maintained. 
I  have  also  received  from  Chief  Factors  Ogden  and  Mactavish 
a  reply  to  my  circular  letter,  as  aforesaid,  solemnly  protesting 
against  any  invasion  of  their  rights,  and  referring  my  letter 
to  the  superior  ofiicers  of  the  Company  for  the  necessary  ac- 
tion.    I  regret  that  this  letter  was  left  at  Olympia. 

The  accompanying  report  of  Colonel  Isaad  N.  Ebey,  as  to 
the  value  of  Fort  Vancouver  and  the  Cowlitz  farms,  gives  a 
lively  picture  of  the  conflicting  character  of  claims  to  land  at 
Fort  Vancouver.  His  estimate  of  Fort  Vancouver  and  its  de- 
pendencies is  $32,000. 


Fort  Nisqually,  December  27,  1853. 

Sir:  I  have  had  the  honor  to  receive  your  communication 
of  the  20th  instant,  calling  my  attention  to  certain  views  en- 
tertained by  the  General  Government  of  the  United  States  as 
to  the  rights  and  privileges  secured  to  the  Hudson's  Bay  Com- 
pany and  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company  by  the 
treaty  ratified  between  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States  on 
the  5th  of  August,  1846. 

With  regard  to  what  is  set  forth  in  your  letter  as  to  the 
possessory  rights  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  I  hereby 
solemnly  protest  against  such  views  as  almost  entirely  fritter- 
ing away  the  very  ample  rights  secured  to  said  Company  by 
the  treaty  of  1846,  as  understood  by  several  of  the  highest 
legal   authorities  in  the  United   States  and   British  North 


229 


America.  More  oipocially  do  I  protest  against  that  view  of 
the  case  which  would  go  to  deprive  the  Hudson's  Bay  Com- 
pany of  the  right  of  trading  with  the  Indians,  and  I  conceive 
it  in  the  utmost  degree  improbable  that  the  high  contracting 
parties — the  framora  of  the  treaty — ever  contemplated  deny- 
ing the  Company  one  of  the  most  important  rights  it  possessed. 
Had  such  been  the  intention  of  the  distinguished  men  who 
settled  the  terms  of  the  treaty,  an  exception  would  have  been 
made  as  to  trade  with  Indians  in  the  article  granting  to  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company  all  the  rights  they  possessed  at  the 
date  of  the  treaty,  and  inasmuch  as  no  such  exception  was 
then  made,  I  contend  that,  according  to  acknowledged  princi- 
ples of  international  law,  subsequent  rastrictions  and  limita- 
tions cannot  justly  bo  sustained. 

Ever  since  the  terms  of  the  treaty  between  Great  Britain 
and  the  United  States,  ratified  August  5, 1846,  became  known 
in  this  part  of  the  world,  I  have  claimed,  on  behalf  of  the 
Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company,  the  tract  of  country  of 
which,  as  farms,  lands,  or  otherwise  as  property,  the  said  Com- 
pany, by  its  agents,  was  in  the  sole  and  exclusive  use  and  oc- 
cupancy at  the  date  of  said  treaty,  and  for  a  long  time  previ- 
ously. I  have  claimed  no  land  abandoned  prior  to  the  date  of 
the  treaty  nor  any  primarily  occupied  subsequently. 

While  on  this  subject,  I  bog  to  call  your  attention  to  sundry 
encroachments  on  the  Company's  rights  by  American  citizens 
who,  chiefly  since  the  year  1850,  despite  my  written  notifica- 
tions that  they  wore  trespassing  on  the  Company's  lands,  have 
settled  on  the  prairies  between  the  Nisqually  and  the  Puyallup 
rivers,  all  which  are  included  in  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricul- 
tural Company's  claim. 

The  evils  thence  arising  are  manifold;  in  some  instances  our 
enclosed  lands  under  cultivation  have  been  taken  possession 
of;  more  frequently  the  rails  forming  our  sheep-folds  and 
other  enclosures  have  been  appropriated  by  the  settlers,  who 
have  enclosed  and  ploughed  up  all  the  best  spots  of  pasture 
lands. 

They  prevent  our  shepherds  from  pasturing  sheep  near  their 
farms,  and  it  has  long  been  a  oustora  with  several  to  shoot  the 


1 


\] 


:\ 


J 


II 


280 

Company's  cattle  and  even  rilling  horses,  when  feeding  near 
their  houses  and  enclosures. 

Another  mischievous  custom,  pretty  generally  adopted,  has 
been  to  hunt  the  Company's  cattle  into  the  woods  with  dogs 
whenever  herds  grazing  used  to  approach  a  settler's  fields. 

In  a  considerable  degree,  owing  to  practices,  our  cattle  have 
been  rendered  much  wilder  than  they  wore  in  1846,  when  we 
were  in  the  habit  of  driving  with  ease  cattle  from  the  romotest 
corners  of  the  pasture  grounds  into  parks  at  this  place. 

In  thus  showing  that  the  Fugct's  Sound  Agricultural  Com- 
pany, have,  for  some  years  back,  sustained  grout  and  increasing 
loss  in  consequence  of  the  various  encroachments  above  men- 
tioned, I  must  in  justice  add,  that  several  persons  settled  on 
the  Company's  lands  have  exhibited  a  consideration  and  for- 
bearance highly  creditable. 

Doubtless  the  settlers  have  complaints  to  make  of  pastures 
eaten  bare  and  fields  invaded  by  the  Company's  live  stock,  but 
it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  Company,  by  the  stipulations 
of  the  Oregon  boundary  treaty,  as  well  as  by  provisions  of  the 
land  donation  act  in  force  in  Washington  Territory,  has  the 
prior  and  sole  right  still  to  the  lands  it  has,  by  its  agents,  so 
long  occupied. 

I  will  endeavor,  as  soon  as  possible,  to  furnish  you  with  a 
copy  of  the  Company's  articles  of  agreement,  and  can  produce, 
whenever  required,  proof  of  all  the  foregoing  statements  rela- 
tive to  its  affairs. 

Submitting  said  statements  to  your  impartial  consideration, 
I  have  the  honor  to  remain,  sir,  your  very  obedient  servant, 

William  Frasser  Tolmib, 
C.  F.  ffudson's  Bay  Co.,  agent  Pugct'a  Sound  Ag'l  Go.y 

Nitqually,  Washington  Territory. 

To  his  Excellency  IsAAO  I.  STKVmNt), 

Qovemor  of  W.  T.  and  Sup't  of  Indian  Affairs. 


Olympia,  Washington  Territory, 
January  7,  1854. 
Sir  :  In  accordance  with  your  request  to  me,  dated  Decem- 
ber 12,  1853,  I  proceeded  to  Fort  Yanoouvor,  to  inquire  into 


281 


the  nature  and  extent  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company's  pos- 
sessions at  Fort  Vancouver,  and  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural 
Company's  possessions  at  the  Cowlitz,  and  make  the  following 
report,  to  wit: 

The  extent  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company's  possessions  at 
Fort  Vancouver,  at  the  date  of  the  treaty  between  the  United 
States  and  Great  Britain,  were  certainly  not  greater  than  was 
claimed  for  them  by  Mr.  Ballenden,  chief  factor  of  the  Hud- 
son's Bay  Company  at  Fort  Vancouver,  in  a  communication 
addressed  by  that  gentleman  to  the  surveyor  general  of  Oregon 
Territory,  on  July  30,  1852.  This  tract  of  country  certainly 
embraces  every  acre  of  land  upon  which  a  possessory  right  to 
the  land  could  be  claimed.  Within  that  boundary  the  Hud- 
son's Bay  Company  have  a  stockade  fort,  on  the  inside  of 
which  are  ten  houses,  eight  of  which  were  erected  before  the 
treaty  of  boundary  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Bri- 
tain, and  two  have  been  erected  since.  There  are  about  twenty 
cabins  built  outside  the  enclosure,  and  a  large  warehouse  near 
the  bank  of  the  river.  The  buildings  on  the  inside  the  enclo- 
sure are  so  old,  and  the  timbers  and  materials  of  which  they 
are  constructed  so  decayed,  as  to  render  them  almost  wholly 
valueless.  The  cabins  on  the  outside  the  enclosures  are,  with 
few  exceptions,  built  of  slabs,  and  were  erected  by  the  servants 
of  the  Company  for  their  own  convenience;  they  are  mostly 
old,  dilapidated  huts,  most  of  them  untenanted,  and  are  left 
to  decay. 

The  lands  in  cultivation  about  Fort  Vancouver  at  the  date 
of  the  treaty  did  not  exceed  two  hundred  and  fifty  acres  ;  since 
that  time  many  of  the  enclosures  have  been  broken  up,  and 
lands  once  cultivated  now  all  a  waste.  Above  Fort  Vancou- 
ver, and  near  the  Columbia  river,  the  Hudson's  Bsiy  Company 
have  a  grist  and  saw-mill.  The  grist-mill  was  erected  in  1836, 
and  is  now  worthless,  or  nearly  so,  the  value  of  which  is  little 
if  any  more  than  old  machinery.  There  was  a  new  mill  frame 
erected  at  this  place  in  1847,  that  has  never  been  coi  :r 'ded 
or  put  in  operation.  At  this  mill  are  soole  other  improvements ; 
there  is  a  store  house  and  miller's  house ;  these  houses  are  log 
houses  with  shingle  roofs. 


\\ 


282 


li 


1  hesaw-mill  that  is  now  in  operation  was  built  since  the  treaty. 

In  the  vicinity  of  those  mills,  at  the  date  of  the  treaty,  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company  had  about  two  thousand  acres  of  land 
in  cultivation,  with  farm-houses,  barns,  &c.  Since  that  time 
the  cultivating  land  and  enclosures  have  been  reduced  to  about 
one  thousand  acres,  and  the  buildings  left  to  dilapidature  and 
decay.  These,  as  far  as  I  can  ascertain,  embrace  the  whole 
of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company's  improvements  in  the  vicinity 
of  Fort  Vancouver,  if  we  except  a  few  sheep-pens  that  were 
at  one  time  on  the  possessions  below  the  fort.  These  have  long 
since  been  abandoned. 

I  cannot  estimate  the  value  of  the  improvements  in  and 
about  Fort  Vancouver  at  more  than  the  sum  of  twenty-five 
thousand  dollars  ;  the  improvements  about  the  saw  and  grist- 
mills, including  the  mills,  dwelling-houses,  storehouses,  farms, 
barn'',  &c.,  at  seven  thousand  dollars,  making  in  all  thirty-two 
thousand  dollars. 

To  the  second  inquiry  I  would  state  that  in  the  vicinity  of 
Fort  Vancouver  the  possessions  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company 
have  not  been  increased  since  the  date  of  the  treaty. 

To  the  third  inquiry  I  would  state,  that  I  think  a  very  consid- 
erable portion  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company's  [claims]  at  Fo  "^ 
Vancouver,  held  by  them  at  the  date  of  the  treaty,  have  bec( 
obsdlete  by  abandonment.  At  the  date  of  the  treaty  and  p. 
to  that  time  all  the  country  below  Fort  Vancouver  was  used 
by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  as  grazing  grounds  for  their 
herds  of  cattle,  sheep,  horses,  and  hogs,  with  the  necessary 
huts  to  Shelter  then*  shepherds  and  herdsmen.  This  section  of 
country  has  been  abandoned  for  this  use  or  any  other  by  the 
Company  for  years  past. 

Their  possessions  in  the  vicinity  of  the  mill  and  Mill  Plain 
have  also,  to  a  great  extent,  been  abandoned.  They  have  now 
a  few  head  of  cattle  in  that  vicinity,  driven  from  Fort  Walla- 
Walla  last  summer. 

To  the  fourth  inquivy,  as  "  to  the  nature  and  extent  of  claims 
of  settlers  under  the  donation  act  of  the  United  States,  approved 
September  27,  1850,  upon  lands  claimed  by  said  Companies," 
I  would  state  that  most  of  the  lands  that  are  valuable  for 
agricultural  operations,  within  the  boundaries  claimed  ]by  the 


m 


288 

Hudson's  Bay  Company,  are  claimed  and  held  by  settlers  under 
said  act. 

The  claim  of  land  upon  ^rhich  Fort  Vancouver  stands  is  at 
this  time  claimed  by  Bishop  Blanchette,  bishop  of  Nisqually, 
as  a  Catholic  mission,  by  virtue  of  a  provision  in  the  act  of 
Congress  organizing  Washington  Territory,  approved  March 
8,  1858.  The  Liishop  has  notified  the  surveyor  general  of  Ore- 
gon of  his  claim,  embracing  six  hundred  and  forty  acres.  The 
same  tract  of  land  is  claimed  by  James  Graham,  chief  clerk 
to  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  at  Fort  Vancouver,  to  the 
amount  of  six  hundred  and  forty  acres.  Mr.  Graham  is  a  nat- 
uralized citizen.  There  may  be  other  claims  upon  this  tract 
of  land  by  citizens  under  the  donation  law;  if  so,  I  was  unable 
to  find  them. 

The  county  of  Clarke  has  for  a  number  of  years  claimed  the 
right  of  pre-emption  to  one  hundred  and  sixty  acres  of  this 
tract  of  land,  under  authority  of  an  act  of  Congress  giving 
county  seats  the  right  of  pre-emption  to  one  hundred  and 
sixty  acres  of  land  on  lands  belonging  to  the  General  Govern- 
ment. The  authorities  of  Clarke  county  I  believe,  have  made 
sales  of  lots  to  individuals,  on  this  tract  of  land,  and  received 
considerable  sums  of  money  for  the  same.  Neither  the  autho- 
rities of  the  county  nor  individuals  have  made  improvements 
OD  the  same. 

Over  all  these  claims,  the  United  States  have  made  a  mili- 
tary reservation  of  six  hundred  and  forty  acres,  embracing 
most  of  the  land  claimed  by  the  conflicting  claimants. 

The  land  claim  immediately  above,  and  joining  the  above 
tract,  is  claimed  by  Forbes  Barclay,  as  a  British  subject.  This 
tract  embraces  six  hundred  and  forty  acres.  I  could  not  learn 
that  Mr.  Barclay  had  ever  resided  on  the  land.  Some  years 
ago  he  was  acting  physician  for  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company, 
at  Fort  Vancouver,  but  has  for  several  years  past,  and  now 
resides  at  Oregon  city,  Oregon  Territory.  I  believe  he  made 
some  improvements  on  this  tract  of  land.  The  Hudson's  Bay 
Company  have  the  principal  part  of  the  cultivating  lands  at 
Fort  Vancouver.  On  this  claim  they  at  present  cultivate  near 
two  hundred  acres  of  land  on  the  same. 


(i 


284 


■  J 


a 


ii 


V 


•I. 


This  sntno  tract  of  land  is  claimed  by  a  Mr.  Ryan,  a  citizen 
of  the  United  States,  under  the  autaority  of  the  donation  law. 
Mr.  Ryan  claims  eix  hundred  and  forty  acres;  has  a  good  farm 
house,  anu  outhouses,  &c.  He  has  about  thirty  acres  of  land 
in  cultivation. 

The  claim  above  this  is  a  tract  of  six  hundred  and  forty 
acres,  claimed  by  Mr.  Nye,  who  is  an  American  citizen.  The 
most  of  the  improvements  on  this  claim  were  made  by  a  ser- 
vant of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  for  himself.  He  sold  the 
claim  to  Peter  Skcon  Ogden,  Governor  of  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company,  who  transferred  the  claim  to  Mr.  Switzler.  Switzler 
transferred  the  claim  to  Nye.  Nye  has  made  some  improve- 
ments. On  this  claim  there  are  some  ten  or  twelve  acres  of 
land  enclosed  and  cultivated:  also,  a  house  and  barn. 

Daniel  Harvey  claims,  (a  British  subject,)  under  the  treaty 
of  boundary  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain,  a 
tract  of  land  about  fonr  miles  square,  including  the  grist  and 
saw-mills  and  the  Mill  Plain  upon  which  is  located  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company's  farms.  William  F.  Crate,  who  is  now,  and 
has  been  for  some  time,  in  the  employ  of  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company,  is  a  naturalized  citizen,  and  claims  six  hundred  and 
forty  acres  of  land,  including  the  grist-mill,  under  the  dona- 
tion law.  Ho  has  made  no  improvements.  I  believe,  however, 
there  are  iv  house  atid  barn,  and  about  fifty  acres  in  cultivation. 
Gabrioi  Burktroth  claims  six  hundred  and  forty  acres  of  land, 
under  the  donation  law,  including  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company's 
saw-mill.  He  is  a  citizen.  A  part  of  this  claim  is  claimed 
by  Mr.  Maxon,  who  is  an  American  citizen,  and  claims  six  hun- 
dred and  forty  acres  of  land-  His  dwelling-house  is  on  the 
saw-mill  claim.  The  balance  of  Mr.  Maxon's  clairi)  is  on  the 
Camad  Plain,  on  which  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  has  had  no 
improvements.  On  this  [lain  a  number  of  Americans  have 
settled,  among  whom  are  San).  Fredstel,  Thomas  Fletcher, Levi 
Dothit,  Mr.  Shaw,  John  Predstel,  Valentine  Predstel,  Jacob 
Prcdstcl,  and  Daniel  OUis.  These  persons  have  very  little 
improvements  except  their  houses.. 

Peter  Dunnington  has  the  claim  above  Nye's  on  the  river. 
His  improvements  consist  of  a  house  and  about  six  acres  in 
cultivation. 


1l 


iioiliOiUrj 


235 


John  Stringer's  claim,  on  which  are  a  house  and  barn,  and 
about  fifty  acres  in  cultivation. 

The  widow  and  heirs  of  Daniel  V.  3hort  claim  six  hundred 
and  forty  acres.  On  this  claiic  there  is  a  good  farm-house  and 
about  fifty  acres  in  cultivation.     This  claim  was  taken  in  1847. 

George  Maleek,  an  American  citizen,  claims  six  hundred 
and  forty  acres  under  the  donation  law.  His  improvements 
consist  of  a  dwelling-house  and  about  thirty  acres  in  cultiva- 
tion. 

Charles  Prew,  a  naturalized  citizen  and  late  servant  of  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company,  claims  the  same.  Prew  took  the  claim 
in  1849.     He  quit  the  H.  B.  C.'s  service  in  the  year  1848. 

Maleek  took  his  claim  in  1848,  and  left  it,  and  returned  to  it 
again  in  1851. 

Mr.  Prew  also  holds  the  same  claim  under  a  lease  from  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company. 

Francis  Laframbcise,  a  naturalized  citizen,  claims  six  hun- 
dred and  forty  acres  under  the  donation  law.  His  improvements 
consist  of  a  house  and  barn,  and  about  fifty  acres  of  land  in 
cultivation.  Mr.  Laframboise  also  holds  as  a  lessee  of  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company. 

Abraham  Roby  claims  six  hundred  and  forty  acres  under  the 
donation  law.  His  improvements  consist  of  a  house  and  five 
acres  of  land  in  cultivation.  Mr.  Roby  also  holds  as  a  lessee 
of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company. 

St.  Andrew  claims  six  hundred  and  forty  acres  of  land  under 
the  donation  law.  His  improvements  consist  of  a  house  and 
five  acres  of  land  in  cultivation.  Mr.  St.  Andrew  also  holds 
as  a  lessee  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company. 

James  Petram  claims  six  hundred  and  forty  acres  of  land 
under  the  donation  law.  His  improvements  consist  of  a  good 
house  and  barn,  and  about  fifty  acres  of  land  in  cultivation. 
Mr.  Petram  also  holds  as  a  lessee  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Com- 
pany. 

Scepleawa  claims  three  hundred  anvi  twenty  acres  as  an 
American  citizen.  His  improvemecri  consist  of  a  dwelling- 
house  and  five  acres  of  land  in  cultivation. 

Isaac  E.  Bell  claims  six  hundred  and  forty  acres  of  land 
17  B 


236 


under  the  donation  law.  His  improvements  consist  of  a  dwell- 
ing-house and  five  acres  of  land  in  cultivation.  Mr.  Bell  is 
an  American  citizen. 

John  C.  Allman  claims  six  hundred  and  forty  acres  of  land 
under  the  donation  law.  Hib  improvements  consist  of  a  house 
and  about  twenty-five  acres  of  land  in  cultivation. 

This  claim  is  also  claimed  by  Edward  Spencer,  as  a  British 
subject.  Mr.  Spencer  has  no  improvements,  except  the  square 
of  a  log  cabin  without  roof.  Mr.  S.  has  never  resided  on  the 
land. 

T.  P.  Dean  and  Malky  claim  each  one  hundred  and  sixty 
acres  of  land  under  the  donation  law.  Their  improvements 
consist  of  two  houses  and  about  ten  acres  of  land  in  cultiva- 
tion. 

The  above  is  claimed  by  the  heirs  of  Foster,  who  claims 
as  a  British  subject. 

William  H.  Dillon  claims  six  hundred  and  forty  acres  under 
the  donation  law.  He  is  an  American  citizen,  and  his  im- 
provements consist  of  a  house  and  about  sixty  acres  in  culti- 
vation. The  same  land  is  claimed  by  a  Canadian  half-breed 
as  a  British  subject. 

David  Sturgess  claims  six  hundred  and  forty  acres  of  land 
under  the  donation  law.  His  injprovements  consist  of  a  house 
and  thirty-five  acres  of  land  in  cultivation.  This  land  is  also 
claimed  by  George  Harvey,  a  British  subject,  residing  at  Van- 
couver Island.  He  superintended  the  salmon  operations  at 
this  place  for  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company. 

The  Company  still  continues  to  take  and  salt  salmon  at  this 
place.     The  Company  have  no  improvements  at  this  fishery. 

George  Batty  claims  three  hundred  and  twenty  acres  of  land 
under  the  donation  law.  His  improvem>.iitfc,  consist  of  a  house 
and  ten  acres  of  land  in  cultivation. 

James  Bowers  claims  three  hundred  and  twenty  acres  of 
land  under  the  donation  law.  His  improvements  consist  of  a 
house  and  about  ten  acres  in  cultivation. 

Mr.  Linsey  claims  three  hundred  and  twenty  acres  of  land 
under  the  donation  law.  His  improvements  consist  of  three 
or  four  acres  of  land  in  cultivation,  and  a  house. 

John  Dillon  claims  three  hundred  and  twenty  acres  of  land 


i 


287 


land 
)U8e 


of 
)f  a 


[and 
liree 


land 


under  the  donation  law.     His  improvements  consists  of  a  house 
and  five  acres  of  land  in  cultivation. 

Ira  Patterson's  claim  is  a  part  on  the  Hudson's  Bay  Com- 
pany's claim.  He  claims  three  hundred  and  twenty  acres  of 
land  under  the  donation  law.  His  improvements  are  a  house 
and  twenty  acres  of  land  in  cultivation. 

Samuel  Matthews  claims  three  hundred  and  twenty  acres  of 
land  under  the  donation  law.  His  improvements  consist  of  a 
house  and  thirty  acres  of  land  under  cultivation. 

Clark  Short  claims  three  hundred  and  twenty  acres  of  land 
under  the  donation  law.  His  improvements  consist  of  a  log 
dwelling-house. 

Michael  Trobb  claims  one  hundred  and  sixtv  acres  of  land 
under  the  donation  law.     His  improvements  consist  of  a  houde. 

John  B.  Lee  claims  one  hundred  and  sixty  acres  of  land 
under  the  donation  law.     Improvement,  a  house. 

George  Morrow  claims  one  hundred  and  sixty  acres  of  land 
under  the  donation  law.     His  improvement  is  a  house. 

J.  L.  Myers  claims  three  hundred  and  twenty  acres  of  land 
under  the  donation  law.  His  improvements  consist  of  a  house 
and  thirty  acres  of  land  in  cultivation. 

George  Weber  claims  three  hundred  and  twenty  acres  of 
land  under  the  donation  law.  His  improvements  consist  of  a 
house  and  eighty  acres  of  land  in  cultivation. 

Benjamin  Olney  claims  three  hundred  and  twenty  acres  of 
land  under  the  donation  law.  Hi  improvements  consist  of  a 
house  and  thirty  acres  of  land  in  cultivation. 

Job  Fisher  claims  one  hundred  and  sixty  acres  of  land 
under  the  donation  law.  His  improvements  consist  of  a  house 
and  twenty-five  acres  of  land  in  cultivation. 

William  M.  Simmons  claims  six  hundred  and  forty  acres  of 
land  under  the  donation  law.  His  improvements  consist  of  a 
house  and  forty  acres  of  land  under  cultivation. 

Alexander  Davis  claims  one  hundred  and  sixty  acres  of  land 
under  the  donation  law.  His  improvements  consist  of  a  house 
and  thirty  acres  of  land  in  cultivation. 

Mr.  Pambrun  is  living  on  Ryan's  claim,  as  the  lessee  of  Dr. 
Barclay,  who  claims  as  a  British  subject. 


238 

The  improvements  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  at  the 
mouth  of  the  Cowlitz  consist  of  two  large  warehouses.  These 
buildings  were  erected  before  the  treaty,  on  the  land  claim  of 
Seabault,  who  granted  to  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  five 
acres  of  land  of  his  claim.  Since  that  time  Senbault  has  sold 
out  his  claim  to  other  parties.  The  buildings  are  of  little 
value,  as  they  stand  on  the  bank  of  the  Cowlitz  river,  where 
annual  freshets  are  wearing  the  bank  so  much  that  the  houses 
will  tumble  in  the  water.  I  do  not  think  the  buildings  are 
worth  exceeding  one  thousand  dollars. 

The  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company  claims  a  tract  of 
land  at  what  is  called  the  Cowlitz  Farms,  embracing  about 
three  thousand  acres.  The  description  of  the  claim  has  been 
filed  in  the  office  of  the  Surveyor  General  of  Oregon  Terri- 
tory, and  described  by  metes  and  bounds  within  three  limits. 
The  Company  claims  to  eight  thousand  acres  of  land,  less  or 
more ;  of  this  about  fifteen  hundred  acres  are  in  cultivation, 
with  the  usual  buildings,  barns,  &c.  The  buildings  are  becom- 
ing old  and  dilapidated.    The is  of  but  little  real  value. 

These  improvements  and  lands  I  would  not  value  at  above 
twenty-five  thousand  dollars. 

All  of  which  is  respectfully  submitted. 
■',.■-,  Isaac  N.  Ebey. 

Governor  Stevens.  it 


Executive  Office, 

Olympia,  January  9,  1854, 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your 
letter  of  December  20,  setting  forth  the  views  of  the  General 
Government  of  the  United  States  in  reference  to  the  rights 
guaranteed  by  the  treaty  of  August  5,  1844,  to  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company  and  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company^ 

Without  intending  to  question  at  all  your  right  to  protest 
a.'5ainst  these  views  as  frittering  away  the  very  ample  rights 
secured  to  said  Company  by  the  treaty  of  1846, 1  have  to  state 
that  a  course  based  upon  these  views,  as  indicated  by  my  letter 
of  December  20,  will  be  strictly  and  firmly  pursued.  ' 


239 


You  especially  protest  against  that  view  of  the  case  which 
would  go  to  deprive  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  of  the  right 
of  trading  with  the  Indians ;  and  you  state  further,  (to  quote 
your  own  words,)  "I  conceive  it  in  the  utmost  degree  im- 
probable that  the  high  contracting  parties,  the  framers  of 
the  treaty,  ever  contemplated  denying  the  Company  one  of 
the  most  important  rights  it  possessed." 

I  conceive  it  to  be  very  clear  that  the  high  contracting  par- 
ties intended  that  no  such  right  should  continue  in  the  Hud- 
son's Bay  Company,  from  the  simple  fact  that  they  have  not 
guaranteed  it  in  the  treaty,  but  are  totally  silent  upon  the 
subject.  This  is  more  apparent,  since  you  state  it  to  be  one 
of  the  most  important  rights  it  possessed.  The  plenipoten- 
tiaries on  the  part  of  Great  Britain  certainly  were  not  entirely 
regardless  of  the  interests  or  ignorant  of  the  nature  of  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company. 

The  treaty  declares  that  in  future  appropriations  of  the  ter- 
ritory, ^c,  the  possessory  rights  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Com- 
pany, and  of  all  British  subjects  who  may  be  in  the  occupa- 
tion of  land  or  other  property,  lawfully  acquired  within  the 
said  territory,  shall  be  respected.  The  Hudson's  Bay  Com- 
pany, prior  to  the  treaty,  may  have  had  a  right  to  trade  with 
the  Indians.  But  it  is  not  the  rights  of  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company,  but  the  possessory  rights  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Com- 
pany, and  of  all  British  .subjects  who  may  be  in  the  occupation 
of  land,  that  are  to  be  respected  in  the  future  appropriations 
of  the  territory.  The  Hudson's  Bay  Company  stand  upon 
the  same  footing  as  all  British  subjects  in  the  occupation  of 
land.  The  rights  and  privileges  secured  to  each  are  the  same. 
It  surely  will  not  be  claimed  that  the  right  to  trade  is  a  pos- 
sessory right.  These  are  terms  of  plain  and  technical  signifi- 
cation. Mr.  Rose,  Queen's  counsel,  of  Montreal,  defines  this 
right  to  be  ^'such  a  fixed  right  in  the  soil  as  would  in  law  pre- 
vent its  alienation  to  others."  To  attempt  to  embrace  the 
right  to  trade,  as  implied  in  the  expression,  "possessory 
rights,"  would  be  to  neg'ativo  the  plain  terms  of  the  treaty,  to 
admit  all  the  other  rights  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  under 
its  charter,  the  right  to  make  laws  and  to  have  civil  and  crim- 


240 


inal  jurisdiction;  and  the  effect  of  the  treaty  would  be  to  vest 
the  sovereignty  of  the  soil  in  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  and 
not  in  the  United  States.  Furthermore,  it  would  have  shown 
on  the  part  of  the  United  States  a  very  great  interest  in  the 
welfare  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  to  have  guaranteed  to 
a  foreign  corporation  a  right  which  they  do  not  grant  to  their 
own  citizens  except  by  special  license. 

You  state  further,  that  ever  since  the  terms  of  the  treaty 
became  known,  you  have  claimed,  on  behalf  of  the  Fuget's 
Sound  Agricultural  Company,  the  tract  of  country  of  which, 
as  farms,  lands,  or  otherwise  as  property,  the  said  Company, 
by  its  agents,  was  in  the  sole  and  exclusive  use  and  occupancy 
at  the  date  of  the  treaty,  and  for  a  long  time  previously.  My 
letter,  I  conceive,  was  sufficiently  explicit  in  this  matter,  nor 
do  I  think  any  doubt  can  arise  from  the  treaty. 

The  treaty  does  not  confirm  whatever  you  may  have  claimed 
from  the  time  the  treaty  became  known,  but  confirms  the 
farms  and  lands  of  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company. 
''Farms  and  lands"  are  well-understood  terms,  and  all  such 
as  have  been  in  the  sole  and  exclusive  use  and  occupancy  of 
the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company  will  be  confirmed. 

The  trespasses  and  other  wrongs  of  which  you  complain 
are  matters  for  the  courts  of  justice.  The  treaty  is,  and  has 
all  the  force  of  a  law  of  the  United  States,  and  as  such  is  to 
bo  respected  and  obeyed.  As  alien  friends  our  courts  are 
thrown  open  to  you,  and  there  your  remedy  is  to  be  sought 
for  the  violation  of  your  rights. 

In  conclusion,  I  take  the  liberty  of  again  calling  your  atten- 
tion to  the  matters  referred  to  in  my  letter  of  December  20, 
as  to  the  nature  and  value  of  the  possessions  of  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company,  and  will  state  that  I  am  desirous  of  procuring 
information  as  to  their  value,  and  will  be  glad  to  receive  any 
communication  from  you  on  that  subject. 

I  am,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

Isaac  I.  Stevens.    • 

William  F.  Tolmie,  Esq., 

Chief  Trader  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  -'   . 

■  '-  ■       Agent  PugeV 8  Sound  Agricultural  Company. 


i 


241 


3n- 


>g 


A— 2. 

[confidential.] 

Hudson's  Bay  House, 

La  Chine,  January  14,  1848. 

My  Dear  Sir:  With  reference  to  our  conversation,  when  I 
had  the  pleasure  of  seeing  you  in  Montreal,  about  two  months 
ago,  on  the  subject  of  a  sale  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company's 
and  Puget's  Sound  Company's  possessions,  &c.,  west  of  the 
Rocky  mountains,  south  of  latitude  49",  either  to  the  United 
States  Government  or  to  a  joint  stock  company,  I  should  be 
glad  to  know,  as  early  as  possible,  if  there  is  any  probability 
of  your  being  in  a  condition  to  make  a  proposition  in  time  to 
enable  me  to  commlinicate  thereon  with  the  governor  and  com- 
mittee in  England,  before  taking  my  departure  for  the  interior, 
soon  after  the  opening  of  the  navigation. 

The  Hudson's  Bay  Company  have,  south  of  49°,  thirteen 
trading  establishments  or  villages,  situated  on  the  most  eligible 
sites,  as  regards  commerce,  water-power,  agriculture,  and  deal- 
ings with  the  natives,  while  their  flocks  and  herds  pasture  on 
large  districts  of  country;  such  occupation  of  itself  forming 
a  good  title  to  the  districts  in  question.  Our  possessions  move- 
over  embrace  the  very  best  situations  in  the  whole  country  for 
offensive  and  defensive  operations,  towns,  and  villages,  while 
our  right  of  navigating  the  Columbia — which  we  hold  in  per- 
petuity, inasmuch  as  our  charter  is  interminable — is  saleable 
and  transferable. 

According  to  my  construction  of  the  term  "possessory 
rights,"  in  the  treaty,  it  secures  to  us  the  right  to  cultivate  the 
soil,  to  cut  down  and  export  the  timber,  to  carry  on  the  fish- 
eries, to  trade  for  furs  with  the  natives,  and  all  other  rights 
we  enjoyed  at  the  time  of  passing  the  treaty;  but  the  term  is 
so  comprehensive  as  not  to  be  easily  defined.  As  regards  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company's  interests,  there  is  a  feeling  among  the 
residents  in  the  country  that  our  business  is  likely  to  benefit 
rather  than  be  injured  by  the  sovereignty  of  the  country  being 
vested  in  the  United  States. 

The  Company  in  England,  h  wever,  are  apprehensive  that 


242 

our  possession  of  the  country  might  lead  to  endless  disputes, 
which  might  be  productive  of  difficulties  between  the  two  na- 
tions, and  would,  therefore,  feel  disposed  to  submit  to  a  very 
great  sacrifice  in  order  to  avert  dangers  of  so  grave  a  nature, 
by  selling  their  establishments,  lands,  flocks,  herds,  rights  of 
tra'^'^  and  navigation,  &c.,  and  withdraw  within  the  British 
territory  north  of  49th  degree,  if  they  could  obtain  but  a  mod- 
erate consideration  for  the  same.  Such  consideration  would 
indeed  bo  moderate  at  one  million  of  dollars,  payable  within  a 
reasonable  period,  but,  for  the  reasons  stated  above,  I  should 
feel  myself  authorized  to  conclude  an  arrangement  at  that 
amount,  which,  on  a  rough  estimate,  is  little  more  than  the  out- 
lay incurred  in  the  erection  of  buildings,  fencing,  bringing 
land  into  cultivation,  and  other  improvements,  and  importing 
stock,  since  our  first  occupation  of  the  country. 

If  your  Government  were  to  look  at  the  importance  of  get- 
ting a  powerful  trading  association  belonging  to  a  formidable 
neighboring  nation  out  of  its  territory,  and  to  the  great 
value  of  the  real  pi'operty  that  would  be  acquired,  besides 
securing  to  the  United  States  the  exclusive  navigation  of  the 
Columbia  river  and  a  valuable  trade  in  furs,  with  other  branches 
of  commerce  now  carried  on  by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company, 
I  should  think  it  would  readily  avail  itself  of  so  favorable  an 
opportunity  for  accomplishing  those  desirable  ends. 

In  speaking  of  the  possessions  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Com- 
pany, I  include  those  of  a  large  pastoral  and  agricultural 
association  formed  under  their  auspices,  styled  the  Puget's 
Sound  Company,  who,  as  well  as  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company, 
have  incurred  very  heavy  outlay  in  the  introduction  of  the 
most  approved  breeds  of  sheep  and  cattle  from  Europe  and 
other  parts  of  the  world.  Their  flocks  and  herds  are  now  ex- 
ceedingly numerous,  roaming  over  hundreds  of  miles  of  the  finest 
country  for  agricultural  operations  west  of  the  Rocky  moun- 
tains, including  fine  water-power  for  machinery,  and  several 
of  the  best  sites  for  towns  and  villages  on  the  shores  of  Puget's 
Sound.  This  association  was  formed  in  1839,  with  a  capital 
of  J100,000  sterling,  and  so  promising  and  productive  is  it 
that  it  has  this  season  divided  ten  per  cent,  on  the  paid  up 


.V-  •  ***  **■■  *^  •  '^**    *  ' 


248 

capital,  while  tho  itook  on  hand  is  valued  at  loss  that  one-third 
the  original  cost. 

As  a  oommoroial  operation,  an  arrangement  on  the  terms  I 
have  proposed  would  be  highly  advantageous  to  the  purchasers, 
.by  tho  re-salo  of  tho  real  property  and  the  large  flocks,  herds, 
and  bands  of  liorAos,  aside  altogether  the  national  advantages 
arising  from  scouring  the  exclusive  navigation  of  the  Colum- 
bia, and  of  portions  of  tho  territory  and  trade  now  enjoyed 
by  British  subjects ;  and  I  cannot  help  thinking  that  if  you 
got  this  subject  brought  fairly  before  your  Government,  or 
leading  capitalists,  it  could  not  fail  to  receive  the  most  prompt 
and  favorable  consideration. 

I  remain,  my  dear  sir,  very  faithfully  yours, 

G.  SIMPSON. 

GflORaB  N.  Saundbrb,  Esq.,  x  • 

New  York. 


\ 


V 


inest 
loun- 


get's 

Ipital 

is  it 

Id  up 


'        A— 3. 

Mr  John  It.  Pelhj  to  Mr.  Clayton. 

Hudson's  Bay  House, 
London,  June  29,  1849. 

Sir:  It  was  not  until  the  22d  instant  that  I  received  through 
Mr.  G.  N.  Saunders,  of  Now  York,  your  letter  of  the  23d 
April,  in  answer  to  that  of  Sir  George  Simpson,  dated  the 
15th  March. 

This  delay  in  tho  delivery  of  your  letter  is  explained  in  the 
enclosed  copy  of  a  letter  from  Mr.  Hennegan  to  i  friend  in 
London,  and  will,  I  trust,  bo  deemed  a  suiBcicat  reason  for  its 
not  having  hitherto  received  an  answer. 

It  would  bo  a  superfluous  task  to  recapitulate  the  weighty 
reasons  which  Sir  George  Simpson  has  stated  for  the  transfer 
of  the  rights  and  possessions  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company 
and  Pugot's  Sound  Agricultural  Company  to  the  United  States. 
I  would  observe,  however,  that  this  is  not  altogether,  or  even 
principally,  a  question  of  price,  the  main  object  of  those  Com- 


v> 


244 

panies  being  the  lettlement  of  a  quoition  out  of  which,  if  left 
long  unsettled,  serious  difBoultios  might  arise. 

As  Mr.  Saunders  informs  mo  that  you  are  ready  to  execute, 
on  the  part  of  the  United  States  Government,  the  conditional 
agreement,  a  copy  of  which  is  onolosod  herewith,  subject  to 
confirmation  by  your  Oovornmont,  I  beg  to  state  that  I  am 
ready,  as  Governor  of  tho  Hudson's  Boy  Company,  and  prin- 
cipal agent  for  the  Pugot's  Sound  Agricultural  Company,  to 
oxoouto  a  counterpart  of  tito  agrooment,  and  to  exchange  the 
same  with  tho  United  States  minister  in  London. 

I  have  the  honor  to  bo,  sir,  your  most  obedient,  humble  ser- 
vant, 

J.  H.  Pellt. 

Hon.  John  M.  Clayton, 

Secretary  of  Stato^  Washington, 


I    ^1 


Whereas  it  was  provided  in  tho  second  article  of  tho  treaty 
between  the  United  States  of  America  and  her  Majesty,  the 
Queen  of  tho  United  Kingdom  of  Groat  Britain  and  Ireland, 
concluded  at  Washington  on  tho  15th  day  of  June,  ISIG,  as 
follows,  viz: 

"  Prom  tho  point  at  which  tho  forty-ninth  parallel  of  latitude 
shafl  bo  found  to  intersect  tho  great  northern  branch  of  the 
Columbia  river,  the  navigation  of  tho  said  branch  shall  be  free 
and  open  to  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  and  to  all  British 
subjects  trading  with  tho  same,  to  tho  point  whore  the  said 
branch  meets  tho  main  stream  to  tho  ocoan,  with  free  access 
into  and  through  tho  said  rivor  or  rivers,  it  being  understood 
that  all  tho  usual  portages  along  tho  lino  thus  described  shall 
in  liko  manner  be  free  and  opou.  In  navigating  the  said  river 
or  rivers,  British  subjects,  with  their  goods  and  produce,  shall 
bo  treated  on  the  same  footing  with  citizens  of  the  United 
States,  it  being,  howovor,  always  understood  that  nothing  in 
this  article  shall  bo  so  construed  as  preventing,  or  intended  to 
prevent,  the  Government  of  tho  United  States  from  making 
any  regulations  respecting  tho  navigation  of  the  said  river  or 
rivers  not  inconsistent  with  tho  prosont  treaty." 


(..»>■»; 


246 

And  whereas  it  was  further  provided  by  the  third  article  of 
the  treaty  as  follows : 

"Art.  8.  In  the  future  appropriation  of  the  territory  south 
of  the  forty-ninth  parallel  of  north  latitude,  as  provided  in 
the  first  article  of  this  treaty,  the  '  possessory  rights '  of  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company,  and  of  all  British  subjects  who 
may  be  already  in  the  occupation  of  land  or  other  property, 
lawfully  acquired,  within  the  said  territory,  shall  be  re- 
spected." 

And  whereas  it  was  further  provided  by  the  fourth  article 
of  the  treaty  as  follows,  viz : 

"The  farms,  lands,  and  other  property  of  every  description, 
belonging  to  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company,  on  the 
north  side  of  the  Columbia  river,  shall  be  confirmed  to  the 
said  Company.  In  case,  however,  the  situation  of  those  farms 
and  lands  should  be  considered  by  the  United  States  Govern- 
ment to  be  of  public  and  political  importance,  and  the  United 
States  Government  should  signify  a  desire  to  obtain  possession 
of  the  whole  or  any  part  thereof,  the  property  so  required 
shall  be  transferred  to  the  said  Government  at  a  proper  valu- 
ation, to  be  agreed  upon  by  the  parties." 

And  whereas  divers  weighty  considerations  evince  the  pro- 
priety and  expediency  of  extinguishing  by  agreement  all  the 
rights,  interests,  reservations,  and  privileges  contained  in  said 
articles  to  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  and  to  the  Puget's  Sound 
Agricultural  Company. 

And  whereas  it  is  understood  that  the  British  Government 
consents  to  said  extinguishment,  surrender,  and  transfer  by 
said  Companies. 

And  whereas  it  is  now  proposed  by  the  said  Companies,  by 
their  agents  thereunto  lawfully  authorized,  to  consent  to  such 
extinction  of  all  their  rights  and  privileges  as  aforesaid,  and 
to  the  ciurrenders  and  transfer  to  the  United  States  of  all  their 
property  and  privileges  of  whatever  description,  to  wit: 

The  right  to  navigate  the  Columbia  river  and  its  tributa- 
ries as  set  forth  in  said  treaty ;  as  also  the  right  to  cultivate 
the  soil,  to  trade  with  the  Indians,  to  mine,  to  hunt,  to  fish, 
and  to  cut  timber  or  lumber  within  said  teritory  of  the  United 


'K 


' .,. 


246 


t 


If, 


States,  together  with  the  Forts  Disappointment,  Qoorge,  Van- 
couver, Umpqua,  Walla-Walla,  Boisb,  Okanagan,  Colvile, 
Kootonay,  1  lat-heads,  Nisqually,  Cowlitz,  and  all  other  forts 
belonging  to  said  Companies,  including  as  much  of  the  enclosed 
lands  belonging  to  said  Companies  as  may  bo  wanted  by  the 
United  States  for  military  or  naval  purposes,  which  lands  arc 
to  be  designated  and  conveyed  by  any  officers  of  the  Govern- 
ment that  may  be  appointed  for  that  purpose,  together  with 
all  the  unenclosed  and  wild  lands  within  said  territories  be- 
longing to  said  Companies,  or  either  of  them,  and  all  other 
property  and  rights,  except  such  as  is  hereafter  specially  enu- 
merated, their  shipping,  merchandise,  provisions,  and  stores 
of  every  dofjcription,  live  stock,  mills,  and  enclosed  grounds, 
except  such  as  may  be  wanted  for  Government  purposes,  as 
before  mentioned,  for  the  sum  of  seven  hundred  thousand 
dollars. 

The  Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States  hereby  agrees 
that  he  will  favorably  lay  before  Congress,  at  its  next  session, 
this  offer  or  proposition  of  the  said  Companies,  to  the  end  that 
Congress  may  exercise  all  proper  power  and  discretion  thereon, 
and  pass  such  act  or  acts  as  may  appear*  to  them  to  be  suit- 
able and  proper;  and  that,  should  Congress  authorize  him  to 
do,  so,  he  will  pay  to  the  said  Companies  the  sum  of  seven 
hundred  thousand  dollars,  upon  the  proper  surrender  of  the 
property  and  privileges  before  enumerated. 

And  the  said  Companies,  by  their  agent,  agree  that  on  the 
passage  of  an  act  or  acts  of  Congress  sanctioning  the  terms 
above  mentiouMl,  they  will  agree  thereto,  and  execute  all 
proper  conveyances  and  transfers  for  carrying  the  same  into 
effect. 

And  the  said  Companies  further  agree  and  bind  themselves 
that  in  the  event  any  contract  shall  be  entered  into  under  the 
authority  of  Congress  they  will,  with  all  reasonable  dispatch, 
withdraw  from  the  territories  of  the  United  States,  and  cease 
all  operations  therein,  leaving,  for  a  limited  time  only,  such 
agents  as  may  be  necessary  for  the  care  of  their  reserved 
stock,  and  enclosed  land  and  mills.  And  they  further  agree, 
and  bind  themselves,  to  sell  and  convey  to  the  United  States, 


1 


247 

for  the  sum  of  ono  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  dollars,  all 
their  farms  and  real  property  not  before  conveyed,  if  the 
United  States  shall  elect,  within  one  year  after  the  execution 

of  said to  purchase  at  that  price;  and  if  the  United 

States  do  not  so  elect,  then  said  Companies  agree  to  bind 
themselves  to  sell  and  dispose  of,  within  two  years  from  the 
execution  of  any  such  contract,  to  citizens  of  the  United 
States,  all  of  said  farms,  mills,  and  live  stock,  so  that  at  the 
end  of  that  period  they  will  have  no  property  rights,  ease- 
ments, or  privileges,  of  any  description  whatever,  within  the 
territories  of  the  United  States. 


.\ 


of  the 


Memorandum  ivith  reference  to  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  and 
I*U(/et's  Sound  Company's  possessory  rights  in  Oregon. 

The  number  of  establishments  in  Oregon  belonging  to  Hud- 
son's Bay  Company  is  fifteen,  and  to  the  Puget's  Sound  Com- 
pany, two;  besides  which,  those  Companies  claim  the  posses- 
sion of  extensive  districts  in  various  parts  of  the  territory, 
which,  prior  to  the  date  of  the  Oregon  treaty,  were  occupied 
by  their  flocks  and  herds. 

The  Hudson's  Bay  Company  (and  all  British  subjects  trading 
with  them)  also  possess  the  right  of  navigating  the  Columbia 
river  on  the  same  footing  as  American  citizens. 

The  Hudson's  Bay  Company's  trading  posts  were  erected 
many  years  previous  to  the  Oregon  treaty,  at  a  time  when  they 
were  the  sole  occupants  of  the  country,  the  sites  being  care- 
fully selected  as  the  most  desirable  for  carrying  on  trade  and 
for  maintaining  their  communications.  The  good  judgment 
which  was  manifested  in  such  selections  is  apparent  from  the 
fact  that,  now  that  the  territory  is  becoming  closely  settled, 


I ' 


. 


I 

I 


I 


248 

those  stations  are  considered  the  most  desirable  sites  for  towns, 
while  the  main  highways  of  commerce  are  those  which  were 
established  by  the  Company. 

As  regards  the  military  occupation  of  the  country,  the  Com- 
pany's posts  would  be  excellent  ':ites  for  constructing  military 
stations,  but  are  not  themselves  adapted  for  anything  more 
than  defense  against  the  Indian  tribes. 

Fort  Vancouver  is  the  most  valuable  of  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company's  stations,  and  has  always  been  the  depot  or  centre 
of  operations,  in  consequence  of  its  admirable  position',  being 
at  the  head  cf  the  ship  navigation  of  the  Columbia  river,  and 
the  point  from  whence  communication  is  most  conveniently 
maintained  with  all  parts  of  the  country,  by  way  of  the  north- 
ern branch  of  the  Columbia  to  the  foot  of  the  Rocky  mount- 
ains, and  thence  across  to  Hudson's  Bay ;  of  Fort  Nez  Percys 
and  the  Snake  country  to  the  head-waters  of  the  Missouri,  and 
of  the  Willamette  river  towards  the  Umpqua  and  California 
in  the  south ;  while  there  are  easy  means  of  access,  by  land 
and  water,  to  Puget's  Sound  and  the  country  lying  north  of  the 
Columbia.     In  addition  to  these  advantages  of  position,  the 
site  of  Fort  Vancouver  is  well  adapted  for  a  town,  the  river 
being  navigable  by  suips  of  larje  tonnage,  which  can  discharge 
at  the  wharves,  while  the  country  around  consists  of  prairies, 
intersected  by  excellent  timber,  which,  when  brought  into  cul- 
tivation, would  meet  the  wants  of  a  large  town  population. 
These  natural  advantages  of  Fort  Vancouver  are  well  under- 
stood in  Oregon,  and  were  the  Company's  claim  extinguished, 
it  would  immediately  bo  occupied  as  a  town,  and  no  doubt 
become  the  great  commercial  emporium  of  the  country. 

It  may  be  well  to  explain  the  conection  that  exists  between 
the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  and  Puget's  Sound  Company.  Sev- 
eral years  before  the  Oregon  treaty,  (in  1838-9,)  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company,  finding  their  operations  in  the  Pacific  too  mul- 
tifarious to  be  efficiently  managed  by  one  concern,  it  was 
thought  advisable  to  separate  their  agricultural  business  from 
their  more  legitimate  commerce.  It  was  accordingly  trans- 
ferred to  an  association  formed  for  the  purpose,  called  the 


249 


jtween 

Sev- 

[dson's 

|o  mul- 

|it  waa 

IS  from 

trads- 

jd  the 


"Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company,"  shares  in  which  were 
taken  by  the  stockholders  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  and 
persons  in  their  service,  as  well  as  by  strangers.  Upwards  of 
eleven  hundred  shares,  of  ^£100  each,  were  subscribed  for,  on 
which  ten  per  cent,  was  paid,  and  for  the  first  seven  or  eight 
years  the  whole  of  the  profits  were  added  to  th?  capital,  which 
has  been  invested  in  the  farms  and  live  stock  cf  that  Associa- 
tion in  Oregon.  The  connexion  between  the  two  Companies 
consists  in  the  fact  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  being 
large  purchasers  of  the  agricultural  produce  of  the  Puget's 
Sound  Company,  and  the  Governor-in-Chief  of  their  Territo- 
ries are  the  agents  of  the  Puget's  Sound  Company,  the  business 
of  which  is  carried  on  under  a  "deed  of  settlement." 

With  reference  to  the  value  of  the  establishments  of  the  two 
Companies,  it  is  found  that  the  actual  cost  of  the  buildings 
and  bringing  the  land  into  cultivation  was,  of  itself,  upwardr 
of  .f 75,000,  estimating  at  the  moderate  price  of  labor  pad 
material  prior  to  the  settlement  of  Oregon  by  American;,  and 
the  discovery  of  gold  in  California.  At  the  present  value  of 
labor  and  material  in  Oregon  the  buildings  could  not  be  erected 
for  double  that  amount. 

The  business  conducted  by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  in 
Oregon  since  the  date  of  the  treaty  has  been  very  remune- 
rative. The  profit  on  the  transactions  of  Fort  Vancouver  alone, 
in  the  year  1849,  exceed  £17,000.  The  sum  of  £200,000,  set 
down  in  the  annexed  estimate,  is  barely  adequate  compensation 
for  abandoning  so  valuable  a  trade. 

The  extent  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  and  Puget's 
Sound  Company's  rights  in  Oregon  has  never  been  defined, 
but  as  those  Companies  conceive  they  are  entitled  to  far  \^ore 
than  the  United  States  Government  or  their  ofiicials  are  likely 
readily  to  admit,  it  is  beyond  a  doubt  that  the  clashing  oT 
interests  which  must  arise  from  the  efforts  of  the  Companies 
to  secure  their  treaty  rights,  and  of  the  United  States  author- 
ities and  settlers  to  restrict  thenp,  will  become  a  fruitful  source 
of  strife,  injurious  to  the  peace  and  go  J  order  of  the  country, 
which  might  eventually  involve  national  interests  also.  It  is 
to  avoid  these  evils  that  the  Companies  are  willing  to  cede 


t 


(I 


.J 


l.i 

t  • 


250 

their  rights  and  possessions  to  the  United  States  Government 
for  the  sum  of  $1,000,000 — less  than  one-half  their  value — as 
per  the  annexed  estimate. 

(Signed)  G.  Simpson. 

Washington,  December  3,  1852. 


Rough  Sketch  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  and  Puget's 
Sound  Company's  possessory  right  in  the  Oregon  Territory, 
tvhich  it  is  proposed  to  sell  to  the  United  States  Gfovernment. 

Hudson's  bay  company.  , 

Fort  Vancouver,  including  the  fort,  mills,  farms, 

and  land  claim  of  upwards  of  ten  miles  square, 

considered  the  best  situation  for  a  town  in  the 

Territory,  being  at  the  head  of  ship  navigation 


on  the  Columbia  river. 

. 

£100,000 

Sauvid's  island,  farms  and  dairy, . 

1,000 

Champooick,  on  the  Willamette  river,  . 

3,400 

Receiving  store,  at  the  mouth  of  the  Cowlitz  river, 

500 

Fort  George  or  Astoria, 

700 

Chinook  Point,     . 

300 

Cape  Disappointment,  . 

3,000 

Fort  Umpqua, 

5,000 

Fort  Nez  Perc<?s, . 

3,200 

Fort  Hall,    .         .         .         . 

3,000 

Fort  Boh6,  . 

1,500 

Okanagan,    . 

2,000 

Fort  Colville,  including  the  farms,  mill  and  fort, 

10,000 

Kootonais'  post, 

500 

Flatheads'  post,   . 

... 

500 

PUGET  S   SOUND  COMPANY. 

Cowlitz  farm, 

Nisqually,  including  the  fort,  farms,  sheep  ranges, 
and  land  claim  of  upwards  of  ten  miles  square, 


£1^,600 

15,000 
17,000 


100,000 

1,000 

3,400 

500 

700 


251 

Value  of  the  "good-will"  of  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company  s  business  in  Oregon,  (including  trade 
with  Indians,)  conducted  by  virtue  of  the  treaty     ^200  000 

Cattle  ranges  in  various  parts  of  the  Territory  7n  ' 

which  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  were  accus^ 
tomed  to  place  their  flocks  and  herds  previous 
to  the  date  of  the  Oregon  treaty,      .        . 


Or  $2,330,000. 


100,000 
^466,600 


Right  of  navigation  of  the  Columbia  river   and 
other  rights,  political  and  possessory,        .' 

Washington,  siKL,  1852.  ^'  ^'''^'''''' 


A--5. 


'fYmE^'SomfAyZV'  '^^^™«  ^^N^S  CLAIMED 
COMPANIES^'''  ^^"^  ^""'^  ^"^^^'«  «OUND  AGRICULTURAL 


3,000 
5,000 
3,200 
3,000 
1,500 
2,000 
10,000 
500 


Bead  in  Committee  of  the  whole  Council.  Tannary  24th,  1856.  and  500  copies 

ordered  to  be  printed.  ^ 


January  24th,  1856. 


Council  Chamber,  Olympia,  W.  T., 
To  Hon.  James  Tilton,  ^^'^'''''^  ^^'  ^^k 

Surveyor  Qeneral  of  Washington  Territory: 

John  J.  Lowell, 
X8B  ^^^«t(*ryqftheCoumil,W.T. 


252 

Beeolved,  That  the  Surveyor  General,  Register  and  Receiver 
of  the  Territory  of  Washington,  be,  and  they  are  hereby 
respectfully  requested  to  furnish  the  Council  with  such  evi- 
dence of  title  and  possessory  rights  on  file  in  their  respective 
offices,  to  lands  claimed  by  the  Hudson's  Bay  and  Puget's 
Sound  Agricultural  Companies;  the  amount  thereof,  whether 
improved  or  otherwise;  and  if  not  deemed  incompatible  with 
the  public  interest,  to  communicate  the  instructions  of  the 
General  Land  Office  in  relation  to  the  claims  or  possessory 
rights  of  said  Companies,  and  also  such  evidence  of  the  exist- 
ence of  a  company  styled  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural 
Company,  and  the  name  of  the  person  acting  as  agent  for  said 
Company,  and  his  authority  for  acting  as  such. 


Office  Surveyor  General,  W.  T., 
Olympia,  January  2-ith,  1856. 
Mr.  John  J.  Lowell, 

Secretary  of  Council: 

Sir:  Your  communication  of  January  17th,  1856,  is  re- 
ceived. With  regard  to  that  portion  of  your  letter  requesting 
the  office  ''to  furnish  the  Council  with  such  evidence  of  title 
and  possessory  rights  on  file  in  this  office  relative  to  the  lands 
claimed  by  the  Hudson's  Bay  and  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural 
Companies,"  I  would  respectfully  state: 

With  the  exception  of  a  clause  in  the  treaty,  dated  August 
15,  1846,  between  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States,  refer- 
ring to  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company's  possessory  rights,  and 
another  clause  in  the  same  treaty  confirming  the  lands  of  the 
Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company,  there  is  no  evidence  of 
title  upon  record  in  this  office  to  lands  claimed  by  either  of 
the  above  Companies. 

Herewith  I  have  the  honor  to  transmit  copies  of  all  the  cor- 
respondence between  this  office  and  the  General  Land  Office 
upon  the  subject ;  also  copies  of  my  instructions  to  Mr.  Deputy 
Surveyor  Chenowith,  relative  to  surveys  upon  the  lands  of  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company ;  also  copies  of  letters  to  Chief  Fac- 


263 

tors  Mactavish  and  Dr.  Tolmie,  and  from  those  officers,  and  a 
protest  from  Chief  Factor  Mactavish ;  a  copy  of  instructions 
from  General  Land  Office  to  Surveyor  General  Preston,  of 
Oregon  Territory,  dated  March  10, 1851,  and  an  extract  from 
my  annual  report  to  Commissioner  General  Land  Office,  dated 
September  20, 1855,  and  three  maps  of  the  claims.  In  answer 
to  the  last  clause  of  your  letter,  viz :  ''and  also  such  evidence 
of  the  existence  of  a  Company  styled  the  Puget's  Sound  Agri- 
cultural Company,  and  the  name  of  the  acting  agent  and  his 
authority  for  acting  as  such,"  1  would  respectfully  answer  that 
no  evidence,  except  the  treaty,  is  on  file.  The  name  of  the 
person  acting  as  agent  is  William  F.  Tolmie.  Of  his  authority 
for  his  acting  as  such,  there  is  no  evidence  on  file  in  this  office. 
Very  respectfully, 

James  Tilton, 
Surveyor  (General  of  W.  T. 


Instructions  from  General  Land  Office  to  Surveyor  Cf-eneral  of 
Oregon,  dated  March  10th,  1851. 


Section  11. — By  the  treaty  at  Washington,  on  the  5th  Au- 
gust, 1846,  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain,  it  is 
stipulated  as  follows: 

Article  3. — In  the  future  appropriation  of  the  lands  south 
of  the  forty-ninth  parallel  of  north  latitude,  as  provided  in  the 
first  article  of  this  treaty,  the  possessory  rights  of  the  Hud- 
son's Bay  Company,  and  of  all  British  subjects  who  may  be 
already  in  the  occupancy  of  land  or  other  property  lawfully 
acquired  within  the  said  Territory,  shall  be  respected. 

Article  4. — The  farms,  lands,  and  other  property  of  every 
description  belonging  to  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Com- 
pany, on  the  north  side  of  the  Columbia  river,  shall  be  con- 
firmed to  the  said  Company.  "In  case,  however,  the  situation 
of  those  farms  and  lands  should  be  considered  by  the  United 
States  to  be  of  public  and  political  importance,  and  the  United 
States  should  signify  a  desire  to  obtain  possession  of  the  whole 


{  t\l 


254 

or  any  part  thereof,  the  property  so  required  shall  be  trans- 
ferred to  the  said  Government,  at  a  proper  valuation,  to  be 
agreed  upon  between  the  parties. 

No  steps,  so  far  as  we  are  informed,  have  been  taken  by  our 
Government  to  avail  itself  of  the  right  of  purchase,  recognized 
in  the  second  paragraph  of  the  4th  article,  nor  have  any  meas- 
ures been  prescribed  by  act  of  Congress  for  ascertaining  and 
separating  from  the  public  domain  the  particular  land  which 
the  treaty  makes  it  incumbent  upon  us  to  respect. 

In  prosecuting  the  public  survey,  however,  it  is  proper  we 
should  guard  against  any  act  which  might  lead  to  conflict  and 
difficulty  in  title  in  surveying  and  donating  the  public  lands 
of  the  United  States. 

Whenever,  therefore,  in  the  extension  of  the  public  surveys, 
you  approach  the  vicinity  of  the  claims  alluded  to  in  the  treaty, 
you  are  instructed  to  call  upon  the  claimants,  or  their  agents, 
to  present  to  you  the  evidence  of  the  rights  they  may  claim  to 
be  protected  by  the  treaty,  and  to  show  you  the  original  locali- 
ties and  boundaries  of  the  same,  which  they  may  have  held  at 
the  date  of  the  treaty,  and  to  point  out  the  original  locations 
and  boundaries  thereof.  In  every  case  in  which  this  may  be 
done^to  your  satisfaction  you  are  instructed,  in  executing  the 
public  surveys,  to  avoid  any  sectional  or  other  minute  sub- 
division of  the  lands  covered  by  such  claims,  but  you  must 
necessarily  extend  the  township  lines  over  them,  so  as  to  indi- 
cate in  your  return  of  surveys  and  on  the  plats  their  relative 
positions  and  connection  in  the  public  domain  of  the  United 
States. 

You  will,  of  course,  transmit  to  this  office  all  such  evidence 
as  may  be  furnished  you,  and  will  report  the  result  of  your 
actions  thereon  and  proceedings  in  regard  to  the  survey.  It 
will  then  remain  for  Congress  to  vl^termine,  by  legislation, 
what  further  steps  shall  be  taken  to  carry  out  the  provisions 
of  the  treaty  in  such  a  manner  that,  whilst  all  claims  clearly 
within  its  purview  shall  be  recognized,  the  United  States  may 
be  protected  from  any  which  may  not  come  within  its  stipula- 
tions. '      ' 

[Signed  by  Commissioner  of  General  Land  Office.] 


255 

Surveyor  General's  Office, 

Olympia,  W.  T.,  April  2ith,  1855. 
Messrs.  David  Phillips  and  W.  A.  Strickler, 

Deputy  Surveyors,  ^c: 
Gentlemen:  In  the  prosecution  of  surveys  embraced  in 
your  contract,  No.  2,  you  will  comply  strictly  with  the  printed 
instructions  to  the  Surveyor  General  of  Oregon,  being  a 
^*  manual  for  field  operations,"  as  far  as  applicable,  not  incon- 
sistent with  the  following  special  instructions. 

When  your  lines  intersect  the  claims  of  the  Puget's  Sound 
Agricultural  Company,  you  will  only  extend  township  lines 
across  the  claims  subdividing  to  their  lines,  but  not  meander- 
ing them  unless  such  boundaries  be  coast  or  rivers  of  sufficient 
width  to  occupy  25  acres  to  the  mile.        *         *         *         * 

Jas.  Tilton, 
Surveyor  (general  W.  T. 


Surveyor  General's  Office, 

Olympia,  W.  T.,  April  2Sth,  1855. 
Mr.  Justin  Chenoweth, 

Deputy  Surveyor: 
Sir:  Where  your  lines  intersect  the  claims  of  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company,  you  will  extend  township  lines  across  the  claims 
subdividing  to  their  lines,  but  not  meandering  them  unless 
rivers  of  sufficient  width  to  occupy  25  acres  to  the  mile. 

Very  respectfully,  yours, 

James  Tilton, 
'   .  ^  Surveyor  General. 


Office  Surveyor  General  W.  T., 

•    .        Olympia,  April  28,  1855. 
To  the  Chief  Factor  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company: 

Sir:  As  I  am  about  to  extend  the  surveys  of  the  public 
lands  over  that  part  of  this  Territory  in  which  the  settlements 


y' 


256 

of  your  honorable  Cqinpany  is,  in  the  vicinity  of  Fort  Van- 
couver, I  write  to  respectfully  request  of  you  a  map  or  author- 
itative statement  of  your  claim  or  claims  on  the  Columbia 
river,  near  Fort  Vancouver. 

I  am  ordered  by  the  Land  Office  at  Wasb  ington  City  to  cause 
the  lines  of  public  surveys  in  sectional  subdivisions  to  be  ex- 
tended up  to  the  actual  settlements  of  the  British  claimants, 
according  to  the  lawful  and  proper  limits  of  the  same  at  the 
date  of  the  treaty  of  1846. 

What  are  those  limits,  is  the  present  inquiry. 

I  ap,  sir,  most  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

Jas.  Tilton, 
Surveyor  General  W.  T. 


If 


\\\ 


Fort  Vancouver,  W.  T.,  May  9, 1855. 
The  Hon.  Jambs  Tilton, 

Surveyor  Q-eneral  of  Washington  Territory,  Olympia : 

Sir:  I  have  to  acknowledge  receipt  on  the  4th  instant  of 
your  letter  of  the  28th  April,  requesting  that  a  map  or  author- 
itative statement  of  the  claim  or  claims  to  land  of  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company,  on  the  Columbia  river,  near  Fort  Vancouver, 
should  be  handed  you;  and  further  stating  that  you  had  been 
instructed  to  cause  the  lines  of  public  surveys  to  be  extended 
up  to  the  actual  settlements  of  the  British  claimants,  accord- 
ing to  the  limits  of  the  same  at  the  date  of  the  treaty  of  1846. 

In  reply,  I  beg  most  respectfully  to  mention  that  I  am 
unable  to  furnish  you  with  the  statement  you  require,  as  I  do 
not  consider  myself  at  liberty  to  define  any  precise  limits  to ' 
the  claims  of  the  Company,  not  having  authority  to  that  effect 
from  the  Governor  and  committee  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Com- 
pany in  London,  without  which  any  opinion  of  mine  would  not 
be  binding  on  the  Company. 

I  take  the  liberty  of  calling  your  attention  to  the  following 
extract  from  Chief  Factor  Ballenden's  letter  of  30th  July, 
1852,  to  Surveyor  General  Preston,  of  Oregon  Territory,  and 


I 


267 

I  have  to  roquost  that  no  surveys  be  made  or  claims  granted 
within  the  limits  stated  by  Mr.  Ballenden. 

"There  is  however  a  certain  tract  of  country  in  the  neigh- 
borhood of  Vanoouvor,  which  was  for  a  long  period  {and  if 
our  rightt  were  retpeoted  ttill  ought  to  he)  in  the  sole  possession 
and  occupation  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Oompany ;  within  those 
limits  I  must  respectfully  request  that  no  surveys  be  made  or 
claims  granted  to  any  person  whatsoever  without  the  approba- 
tion of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Oompany.  That  tract  to  which  I 
refer  commences  at  a  stake  and  tree  marked,  on  the  north 
bank  'of  the  Oolumbia  river,  about  two  miles  west  of  Willow 
Point;  thence  running  northerly  along  the  slough,  until  it 
meets  the  outlet  of  the  Lake  river;  thence  following  the 
meanders  (easterly)  of  the  large  lake  19\*  miles,  passing  on 
the  north  bank  until  it  strikes  a  small  stream  entering  the 
lake  on  the  northeast  side  15°  S.  6|  miles,  to  a  stake  marked 
between  the  Third  and  Fourth  Plains,  in  a  swamp ;  thence  east 
22°  S.  4^  miles,  to  the  Camas  Plain  to  a  stake  marked;  thence 
south  8^  miles  to  the  Oolumbia  river ;  thence  following  the 
meanders  of  said  river  to  the  place  of  beginning;  also  one 
small  island  «outh  of  Vancouver,  on  the  Oolumbia  river. 

Most  respectfully,  I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

DUGALD  MaCTAVISH, 

Chief  Factor  Hudson* %  Bay  Company, 


U.  S.  Surveyor  General's  Office, 

Olympia,  W.  T.,  April  27,  1855. 
To  Dr.  Toj-Mii! : 

.Sir:  Having  contracts  on  the  part  of  the  United  States 
with  Messrs.  Phillips  and  Strickler  to  survey  that  portion  of 
the  public  lands  lying  southeast  and  north  of  the  claim  of 
the  Pugot's  Sound  Agricultural  Oompany,  and  giving  them 
instructions  to  respect  your  limits  and  define  the  points  of 
intersection  of  the  public  surveys   with  your  lines,  I  now 

*  Copy  accompanyiog  Purveyor  Qeneral's  Annual  Bepoit,  23d  October,  1852, 
Bays  Si\  milo8, 


<*  re-*it    #*fc  . 


268 

have  the  honor  to  request,  at  your  earliest  convenience,  a  map 
or  diagram  showing  the  boundaries,  with  the  usual  features  of 
the  country  traversed  by  your  lines  whore  they  are  not  natural 
boundaries,  as  shore  or  river,  &o. 
I  am,  sir,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

Jab.  Tilton, 
Surveyor  General  W.  T. 
To  Dr.  ToLMiB, 

Chifjf  Factor  Paget' »  Sound  Agricultural  Company. 


Fort  Nisquallv,  Pieiicb  County,  W.  T., 

iHfay  7,  1855. 
To  James  Tilton,  Esq., 
Surveyor  General  of  Wathington  Territory,  Olympia,  W.  T.: 

Sir:  In  compliance  with  the  request  conveyed  in  your  letter 
of  the  27th  April,  which  I  had  the  honor  to  receive  en  the  5th 
inst.,  I  now  forward  a  diagram  or  map  of  the  Puget's  Sound 
Agricultural  Company's  land  claim  hero,  the  outline  or  bound- 
ary lines  of  which  have  been  carefully  surveyed  and  blazed. 
The>  filling  up  of  the  map  has  been  made,  in  part,  only  by 
measurement,  but  it  faithfully  exhibits  the  natural  features  of 
the  country,  although  their  relative  position  is  doubtless  set 
down  more  or  less  incorrectly. 

There  is  also  forwarded  a  copy  of  a  statement  of  the  bound- 
ary lines  of  said  claim  as  forwarded,  with  affidavits  as  to  its 
accuracy,  in  April,  1858,  to  Mr.  J.  B.  Preston,  of  Oregon  City, 
then  surveyor  general  of  Oregon  Territory. 

The  bearer,  Mr.  Huggins,  having  assisted  in  surveying  the 
boundary  lines  of  the  Company's  lands,  may,  perhaps,  afford 
you  information  which  may  bo  useful  to  the  gentlemen  ap- 
pointed to  survey  the  public  lands  in  the  immediate  neighbor- 
hood of  the  claim. 

I  have  the  honor  to  bo,  your  very  obedient  servant,  t 

(Signed)  WiLLiAM  Fuaser  Tolmie, 

Agent  Puget't  Sound  Agricultural  Company. 


259 

;  Office  Surveyor  General,  W.  T., 

Olympia,  W.  T.,  May  24,  1855. 
Mr.  Justin  Chenoweth,  Deputy  Surveyor^ 

Sir:  The  Chief  Factor  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  at 
Fort  Vancouver,  having  written  to  me  in  answer  to  a  request 
that  he  would  point  out  the  actual  settlements  or  enclosures 
of  the  Honorable  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  from  a  want  of 
authority  from  the  Hudson's  Bay  Governor  and  Committee  in 
London,  declines  to  point  out  said  enclosures. 

I  hereby  instruct  you  to  ascertain,  from  the  best  information 
in  your  power,  the  limits  of  the  same,  and  fully  sft  them  forth 
upon  your  field  notes  and  plats,  specifying  your  sources  of  in- 
formation. 

In  the  meanwhile,  if  you  can  conveniently,  commence  your 
surveys  at  a  point  of  your  contract  remote  from  the  tracts 
claimed,  and  keep  it  or  them  for  the  last,  as  I  may,  in  a  month 
or  two,  receive  more  specific  instructions  informing  me  of  the 
proper  amounts  of  pasturage,  if  any,  to  confirm  and  set  apart 
to  said  Hudson's  Bay  Company. 

Report  your  actions  to  me  immediately,  and  also  your  place 
of  survey. 

If  possible,  procure  from  the  chief  factor  or  some  other  agent 
information  relative  to  the  farms  and  enclosures  of  1846. 
I  am,  sir,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

James  Tilton, 
Surveyor  General  W.  T. 


General  Land  Office, 
March  12,  1855. 
Sir  :  The  attention  of  this  office  has  been  drawn  by  the 
Hon.  C.  Lancaster,  delegate,  to  the  subject  of  the  British 
claims  in  Washington  Territory,  under  the  treaty  of  1846,  and 
also  to  the  importance  of  pressing  forward  the  surveying  ope- 
rations in  that  territory. 

In  the  instructions  to  you  from  this  office,  of  the  Slst  August, 
1854,  as  printed  with  the  commissioner's  last  annual  report, 


'i   I 


260 

pages  40  to  44,  it  is  stated  that  "  there  was  furnished  to  the 
late  surveyor  general  a  set  of  instructions  in  duplicate,  in  ref- 
erence to  his  duties  under  the  surveying  and  donation  act  of 
Septembf>r  27,  1850,  and  you  were  desired  to  request  of  Mr. 
Gardner  one  set  for  your  o£Bce." 

You  are  therefore  doubtless  in  possession  of  these  instruo* 
tions,  which  are  dated  10th  March,  1851,  and  in  which  you  will 
find  directions  as  to  the  course  to  be  pursued  by  the  surveying 
department,  in  regard  to  the  British  claims  above  mentioned. 

The  advancing  settlement  of  the  territory,  and  its  growing 
interests,  demand  that  all  should  now  be  done  that  we  can  law> 
fully  do,  in  order  to  make  a  proper  discrimination  between  our 
public  lands  and  such  foreign  rights  as  may  be  recognised  by 
the  treaty,  so  tliat  our  people  may  advance,  in  security,  their 
settlements  and  improvements  upon  the  public  domain. 

I  have,  therefore,  in  connection  with  the  instructions  above 
mentioned,  to  direct  that  you  will  cause  the  lines  of  the  public 
surveys,  in  sectional  subdivisions,  to  be  extended  up  to  the 
actual  settlements  of  the  British  claimants,  according  to  the 
lawful  and  proper  limits  of  the  same  at  the  date  of  treaty,  and 
in  this  way  mark  the  discrimination,  so  as  to  show  what  may 
be  treated  as  public  lands,  a  measure  which  the  treaty,  justice 
to  our  people,  and  sound  policy  require.  ♦  *  * 
Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

John  Wilson, 
Commiasioner. 

James  Tilton,  Esq., 

Surveyor  Q-eiieral,  Olympia,  W.  T. 


Office  Surveyor  General  W.  T., 
Oltmpia,  May  8,  1855. 
Mr.  Justin  Chenoweth,  • 

Deputy  Surveyor, 
Sir:  In  pursuance  of  orders  from  the  Commissioner  of  the 
Land  Office,  dated  March  12th,  1855,  directing  me  to  "  extend 
the  public  surveys  by  sectional  subdivisions  up  to  the  actual 


261 

settlements  of  British  claimants,"  I  hereby  request  that  70a 
subdivide,  upon  your  contract  No.  1,  the  lands  claimed  by  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company  up  to  their  enelo$ure$y  as  they  existed 
at  the  date  of  the  treaty  with  Great  Britain  in  1846.  All 
former  instructions  contrary  to  this  are  hereby  withdrawn. 

You  will  confer  with  the  chief  factor,  or  agent  in  charge  at 
Fort  Vancouver,  and  request  him  to  designate  such  actual  set- 
tlements, construed  to  mean  enclosures,  and  in  your  plats  and 
field  notes  make  ample  description  thereof,  defining  your  source 
of  information. 

I  am,  sir,  very  respectfully,  yours, 

Jas.  Tilton, 
Surveyor  General  W-  T. 


Office  Surveyor  General,  W.  T., 
Olympia,  May  8, 1865. 
To  Chief  Factor  or  Agent  Hudson's  Bay  Company  at  Fort 
Vancouver  : 
Sir  :  I  have  received  from  the  Hon.  Commissioner  of  the 
General  Land  Office,  at  Washington  city,  orders  dated  March 
12th,  1855,  of  which  the  following  is  an  extract: 

"  You  will  cause  the  lines  of  the  public  surveys  in  sectional 
subdivisions  to  be  extended  up  to  the  actual  settlements  of  the 
British  claimants." 

In  furtherance  of  the  above  order,  I  have  directed  Mr.  Jus- 
tin Chenoweth,  U.  S.  deputy  surveyor,  to  confer  with  you  in 
the  prosecution  of  the  surveys  entrusted  to  his  charge  in  the 
vicinity  of  Fort  Vancouver,  and  I  respectfully  request  you  to 
point  out  and  define  to  him  the  limits  of  your  enclosures  at  the 
date  of  the  treaty  in  1846. 

Also,  I  would  be  glad  to  receive  a  map  or  plat  of  your  actual 
settlements,  meaning  enclosed  lands,  for  record  at  this  office. 
If  such  map  can  be  made,  showing  the  relative  position  of 
the  Columbia  river,  any  lakes  or  other  prominent  natural  ob- 
jects, it  would  be  very  acceptable  to  your  obedient  servant, 

James  Tilton, 
Surveyor  General  W.  T. 


' 


262 


5t 


Oppicb  Surveyor  General  W,  T., 
Olympia,  May  10, 1855. 

Sir:  Your  letter  of  the  12th  March,  1855,  directing  me  to 
"  extend  the  lines  of  public  surveys  in  sectional  subdivisions 
up  to  the  actu"'  settlements  of  the  British  claimants,  accord- 
ing to  the  lawful  and  pro^  t  limits  of  the  same,  at  date  of  the 
treaty,"  (1846,)  has  been  x<ceived. 

In  answer,  I  would  respectfully  state,  first,  I  have  already 
contracted  for  the  survey  of  lands  surrounding  the  two  prin- 
cipal claims,  viz,  at  Fort  Vancouver,  the  largest  of  Hudson's 
Bay  Company  claim,  and  at  Fort  Nisqually,  the  largest  of  the 
Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company  claim,  and  in  my  instruc- 
tions had  required  the  deputy  surveyors  to  run  township  lines 
only  over  said  claims. 

Under  your  instructions  of  the  12th  March,  I  have  no  hesi- 
tation in  issuing  further  inp.tructions  to  the  deputy  surveyor 
of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  lands  to  subdivide  to  the  actual 
enclosures  as  they  existed  in  1846,  but  I  submit  the  question 
if  such  construction  of  the  then  actual  settlement  is  equally 
applicable  to  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company's  claim. 

I  send  a  map  of  the  Nisqually  claim,  and  in  the  meanwhile 
the  deputy  surveyor  will  continue  his  work  outside  of  the 
cldim  till  I  receive  different  orders  from  yourself  as  to  the 
construction  I  shall  place  upon  the  term  "actual  settlement," 
as  appliRii  to  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  claim.  What  I 
would  inquire  is,  shall  I  subdivide  up  to  the  eneloaures  as  they 
existed  in  1846,  upon  the  lands  claimed  by  the  Puget's  Sound 
Agricultural  Company,  or  am  I  empowered  to  send  for  "  per- 
sons and  papers"  and  discriminate  as  a  commissioner  between 
our  public  lands  and  such  foreign  rights  as  maybe  recognized 
by  the  treaty  ? 

If  the  latter,  what  general  principles  should  govern  such 
discrimination?  Am  I  to  allow  pasturage  for  the  cattle  and 
sheep  said  to  be  in  possession  of  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricul- 
tural Company  in  1846;  if  so,  how  much,  &c.? 

I  conceive  a  material  difference  exists  between  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company  and  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company's 


263 

claim,  one  being  "possessory  rights,"  and  the  other  "farms 
lands  and  other  property  of  every  description  shall  be  con- 
firmed to  them." 

I  would,  sir,  ask  how  I  am  to  set  off  from  the  public  lands 
those  indefinitely  described  tracts  ? 

In  the  meantime,  whilst  awaiting  your  further  instructions, 
I  beg  to  observe  the  public  service  will  not  be  retarded,  as  the 
deputy  has  sufficient  to  occupy  him,  outside  the  alleged  limits 
of  the  Nipqually  claim,  till  I  can  hear  from  you.    *     *     *     * 

By  this  mail  I  forward  copies  of  the  contracts  embracing 
the  lands  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  claim  at  Fort  Van- 
couver, and  the  Puget's  Sound  Vgricultural  Company's  claim 
at  Fort  Nisqually,  Avith  iistrucii ons  to  deputy  surveyors,  con- 
tractors thereof,  and  copies  of  letters  from  agent  of  Puget's 
Sound  Agricultural  Company  and  to  chief  factor  Hudson's 
Bay  Company,  at  Fort  Vancouver. 

I  am,  sir,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

James  Tilton, 
>  Surveyor  General  W.  T. 

To  John  Wilson,  Esq.,  ;  , 

Com.  Gen' I  Land  Office,  Washington,  D.  C. 


[ccpv.] 

Vancouver,  Washington  Territory, 

./mZ^  23,  1855. 
Justin  Chenoweth:  « 

Sir:  I  L  .ve  to  notify  you  that  the  lands  which  you  are  now 
surveying  ai  o  claimed  by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company.  I 
therefore  request  that  you  discontinue  such  operations,  and 
have  further,  in  the  name  of  the  Company,  to  protest  most 
solemnly  a'jainst  any  surveys  being  carried  on  by  the  United 
States  Government  or  other  parties  over  the  lands  in  question. 
Trusting  that  you  will  acknoAvledge  receipt  of  this  communi- 
cation, I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

(Signed)  D.  Mactavish. 

Chief  Factor  Hudions  Bay  Co. 


264 


f:  V  J 


[copy.] 


Vancouver,  July  23,  1855. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your 
note  of  the  23d  inst.,  and  would  state  in  reply  that  I  am  in- 
structed by  the  surveyor  general  of  Washington  Territory, 
in  the  execution  of  my  contract  for  the  survey  of  certain  lands 
in  said  territory,  to  survey  up  to  the  actual  enclosures  or  set- 
tlements belonging  to  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  in  existence 
in  the  year  1846. 

Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

(Signed)  Justin  Chenoweth, 

U.  S.  Deputy  Surveyor. 
Gov.  D.  Mactavish, 

Chief  Factor  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company. 


D 


Office  Surveyor  General  W.  T., 
,  Olympia,  W.  T.,  August  14,  1855. 

D.  Mactavish,  Esq.,  i 

Chief  Factor  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  ^ 

Fort  Vancouver,  Washington  Territory: 
Sir:  Your  letter  dated  July  24,  1855,  protesting  against 
surveys  on  lands  claimed  by  the  Hudson's  iiay  Company,  has 
just  been  forwarded  to  me  by  Dr.  Tolmie,  chi^f  factor  Puget's 
Sound  Agricultural  Company. 

In  answer,  T  state  that  Mr.  Chenoweth  is  acting  in  obedi- 
ence to  my  orders,  see  letter  dated  May  24,  of  which  the  fol- 
lowing is  a  copy : 

3(5  *|»  ^  ^F  ^r  '1^  t*  n*  'T^  n*  'I* 

The  above  orders  were  in  pursuance  of  instructions  to  me 
dated  March  12,  1855,  from  the  Commissioner  General  Land 
Office,  "  to  cause  the  lines  of  public  rveys  in  sectional  sub- 
divisions to  be  extended  up  to  the  actual  settlements  of  the 
British  claimants,  according  to  the  lawful  and  proper  limits 
of  the  same  at  the  date  of  the  treaty  of  1846." 
I  am,  sir,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

James  Tilton, 
Surveyor  Qeneral  W.  T. 


265 


r.  T. 


General  Land  Office, 
Juli/  19,  1855. 
James  Tilton,  Esq., 

Surveyor  Greneral  of  Washington  Territory, 

Olympia,  Washington  Territory: 

Sir:  Your  letter  of  24th  May  last  was  received  by  the  last 
mail,  on  12th  inst.  Having  solicited  the  chief  factor  of  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company,  Dugald  Mactavish,  Esq.,  to  furnish 
you  with  a  map  or  statement,  duly  authenticated,  of  the  claim 
or  claims  of  that  Company  on  the  Columbia  river,  near  Fort 
Vancouver,  after  having  informed  him  that  you  had  been  in- 
structed to  extend  the  lines  of  the  public  surveys  up  to  the 
actual  settlements,  of  the  British  claimants  according  to  the 
limits  of  the  same  at  the  dato  of  the  treaty  of  1846,  he  states 
in  his  letter  of  reply,  (of  which  you  furnish  a  copy,)  as  follows : 

"I  beg  most  respectfully  to  mention  that  I  am  unable  to 
furnish  you  with  the  statement  you  require,  as  I  do  not  con- 
sider myself  at  liberty  to  define  any  precise  limits  to  the  claims 
of  the  Company,  not  having  authority  to  that  efiFect  from  the 
Governor  and  Committee  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Coupany  in 
London,  without  which  any  opinion  of  mine  would  not  be  bind- 
ing on  the  Company." 

Mr.  Mactavish,  although  professing  to  have  no  authority 
himself  to  define  the  limits  alluded  to,  nevertheless  sees  proper 
to  advert  to  a  definition  of  such  limits  in  a  communication  from 
the  Chief  Factor  Ballenden  to  Surveyor  General  Preston,  in 
1852.     He  states  as  follows: 

"I  take  the  liberty  of  calling  your  attention  to  the  follow- 
ing extract  from  the  Chief  Factor  Ballenden's  letter  of  30th 
July,  1852,  to  Surveyor  General  Preston,  of  Oregon  Territory, 
aoid  I  have  to  request  that  no  surveys  be  made  or  claims  granted 
within  the  limits  stated  by  Mr.  Ballenden,  viz  :  '  there  is,  how- 
ever, a  certain  tract  of  country  in  the  neighborhood  of  Fort 
Vancouver,  which  was  {and  if  otir  rights  ivere  respected  still 
ought  to  k')  in  the  sole  possession  and  occupation  of  the  Hud- 
son's Bay  Company;  within  those  limits  I  most  respectfully 
request  that  no  surveys  be  made  or  claims  granted  to  any 
person  whatsoever,  witliout  the  approbation  of  vae  Hudson's 
Bay  Company. 


1   rn 


266 

"  *  That  tract  of  land  to  which  I  refer  commences  at  a  stake 
and  tree  marked  on  the  north  bank  of  the  Columbia  river,  about 
two  miles  west  of  Willow  Point;  thence  following  the  mean- 
ders (easterly)  of  the  said  liver  to  the  large  Lake,  9^  miles, 
passing  on  the  north  bank  until  it  strikes  a  small  stream  enter- 
ing the  lake  on  the  northeast  side;  thence  running  east  15° 
south  Q}  miles,  to  a  stake  marked  X,  between  the  Third  and 
Fourth  Plains,  in  a  swamp;  thence  east  22°  south  4^  miles  to 
the  Camas  Plains,  to  a  stake  mavk ;  thence  south  3|  miles  to 
the  Columbia  river;  thence  following  the  meanders  of  said 
river  to  the  place  of  beginning ;  also  a  small  island  south  of 
Vancouver,  in  the  Columbia  river.'  " 

Mr.  Mactavish,  who  in  1855  disavows  any  knowledge  or  au- 
thority in  regard  to  the  true  definition  of  the  limits  referred 
to,  nevertheless  refei's  to  the  definition  of  the  same  given  by 
the  Chief  Factor  Ballendon,  in  1852,  and  it  yet  remains  to  be 
shown  what  authority  the  latter  agent  had  to  settle  the  ques- 
tion. You  state  that  within  the  limits  designated  by  Mr.  Bal- 
lenden  at  least  eighty  American  settlers  are  found,  and  some  of 
them  have  valuable  improvements.  You  further  state  that ' 
you  await  orders  upon  the  subject  as  to  what  constitutes  the 
"actual  settlements,"  and  the  principles  to  be  acted  upon  in 
defining  claims  under  the  treaty  of  5th  August,  1846,  the 
article  of  which  is  in  the  following  words : 

"  In  the  future  appropriation  of  the  territory  south  of  forty- 
ninth  parallel  of  north  latitude,  as  provided  in  the  first  article 
of  this  treaty,  the  possessory  rights  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Com- 
pany, and  of  all  the  British  subjects  who  may  be  already  in 
the  occupation  of  land  or  other  property  lawfully  acquired 
within  the  said  territory  shall  be  respected." 

The  ^^ possessory  rights"  of  said  Company  and  the  claims  of 
individuals  who  were  in  the  occupation  of  lUnds  at  the  date  of 
the  treaty,  are  to  be  respected,  and  while  the  American  agents 
are  anxious  to  respect  such  claims  in  good  faith,  it  remains 
for  the  British  claimants  to  prove  what  were  their  localities 
and  outlines  of  claims  at  the  time  of  the  treaty;  and,  in  the 
absence  of  other  and  more  reliable  evidence,  the  public  sur- 
veys can  respect  nothing  that  lies  ovUide  of  what  were  enr 
closed  claims  in  1846.    Such  oourBo  of  proceeding  is  deemed 


IV 


267 


valid  in  respect  to  the  claims  of  individuals,  and  Mr.  Mactav- 
ish  is  to  be  expressly  notified  by  you  that  such  will  also  be  the 
proceeding  in  regard  to  the  claim  of  the  Company  he  repre- 
sents, in  case  evidence  from  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  in 
London,  duly  authenticated,  is  not  forthcoming.  Meanwhile, 
however,  you  will  cause  no  other  than  township  lines  to  be 
extended  over  the  claims,  and  the  sectional  lines  and  corners 
are  to  be  stopped' short  of  the  outlines  cited  by  Mr.  Ballenden, 
(thereby  making  all  such  corners  to  lie  outside  of  his  alleged 
limits,)  with  the  understanding  that  such  procedure  is  but  a 
mere  act  of  courtesy  for  the  present,  and  that  the  final  recog- 
nition as  to  the  extent  of  the  "possessory  rights"  of  the  Com- 
pany at  Fort  Vancouver  awaits  determination  on  future  evi- 
dence to  be  adduced;  or  in  default  of  the  production  to  you  of 
such  evidence,  within  a  reasonable  time,  upon  the  fact  being 
reported  here,  the  department  may  feel  authorized  to  direct 
the  surveys  to  be  made  up  to  the  enclosed  claims  as  they  ex- 
isted at  the  date  of  the  treaty  in  1846. 

You  are  requested  to  communicate  to  Mr.  Mactavish  that 
further  delays  in  determining  the  limits  of  such  claims  are  in- 
compatible with  the  interests  of  the  public  service,  and  that 
it  will  remain  for  him  so  to  suggest  to  the  authority  of  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company. 

In  regard  to  th  •  claims  of  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural 
Company  you  will  hereafter  be  advised. 

I  am,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

Geo.  C.  Whitney, 

Acting  Commissioner. 

P.  S.  I  have  to  remark  that  the  instructions  which  accom- 
pany your  contract  with  Phillips  and  Strickler  authorize  them 
to  extend  the  exterior  lines  of  townships  over  the  Puget's 
Sound  Agricultural  claim,  and  to  close  their  subdivisional 
lines,  is  not  approved ;  the  sectional  lines  and  corners  must 
stop  short  of  the  outlines  of  the  claim,  so  that  the  sectional 
cornersmW  be  outside  of  the  limits  claimed,  leaving  unsuroi'i/ed, 
for  the  present,  the  space  between  the  sectiomxl  corners  and  the 
outlines  of  the  claim. 
19  B 


I 


(1 


li  r     ! 

E      I 


2e8 

Fort  Vancouveh,  W.  T., 

July  21«e,  1855. 
The  Hon.  James  Tilton, 

Surveyor  Oeneralof  Washington  Territory,  Olympia: 
Sir  :  Having  been  informed  that  Mr.  Ohenoweth  was  sur- 
veying in  the  neighborhood  of  the  Company's  farm,  on  Mill 
Plain,  about  six  or  seven  miles  from  this  place,  I,  yesterday, 
addressed  a  note  to  that  gentleman,  a  copy  of  which,  together 
with  his  reply,  I  now  beg  leave  to  hand  you. 

Mr.  Chenoweth  states  that  ho  is  acting  by  your  authority; 
and  as  such  may  be  the  case,  it  becomes  my  duty,  in  the  name 
of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  to  protest  most  solemnly  against 
any  surveys  being  carried  on  by  the  United  States  Govern- 
ment or  other  parties  over  lands  in  this  Territory,  claimed  by 
the  Company,  under  the  treaty  of  1846,  between  Great  Britain 
and  the  United  States. 

I  have  ti\e  honor  to  be,  your  most  obedient  servant, 

DUGALD  MaCTAVISH, 

Chief  Factor,  Hudson's  Bay  Company. 


Office  Surveyor  General  W.  T., 

Olympia,  Sept.  lat,  1855. 
Mr.  Justin  Chenoweth, 

U.  S.  Deputy  Surveyor: 

Sir:  I  have  received  orders  from  Washington  City  to  survey 
in  township  lines  only,  all  that  part  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  claim 
near  Fort  Vancouver,  which  is  oomprieed  within  limits  of  the 
lines  designated  by  Mr.  Ballenden  to  Surveyor  General  Pres- 
ton in  1852,  and  which  are  as  follows: 

"That  tract  to  which  I  refer  commences  at  a  stake  and  tree, 
marked,  on  the  north  bank  of  the  Columbia  river,  about  two 
miles  west  of  Willow  Point;  thence  running  northerly  along 
the  slough  until  it  meets  the  outlet  of  Lake  river;  thence  fol- 
lowing the  meanders  (easterly)  of  the  said  river  to  the  large 
lake,  {91)  miles,  passing  on  the  north  bank  until  it  strikse  a 
small  stream  entering  the  lal'e  on  the  notheast  side;  thcace 


lur- 

m\ 

lay, 
ther 

:ity; 

lame 

ftinst 

vern- 

jdby 

ritain 


269 

running  about  15°  S.  6|  miles,  to  a  stake  marked  X,  between 
the  Third  and  Fourth  Plains  in  a  swamp;  thence  east  22" 
S.  4|  miles,  to  the  Camas  Plain  to  a  stake  marked;  thence 
S.  3^  miles,  to  the  Columbia  river;  thence  following  the  mean- 
ders of  said  river  to  the  place  of  beginning;  also  a  small  island 
south  of  Vancouver,  in  the  Columbia  river." 

You  will,  therefore,  extend  town  lines  over  the  above  men- 
tioned tract,  and  your  sectional  lines  will  stop  short  of  the 
outlines  cited  by  Mr.  Ballenden,  thereby  making  all  such 
corners  lie  outside  of  the  alleged  limits. 
Very  respectfully, 

Jas.  Tilton, 
■  '  ",  Survei/or  General  TT.  T. 


I, 
my. 


survey 

claim 

of  the 
il  Pres- 

d  tree, 
lut  two 
f  along 

Iice  fol-  • 
e  large 
Lrikse  a 


Office  Surveyor  General  W.  T., 
Olympia,  W.  T,.  Sept.  1««,  1855. 
DuoALD  Mactavish,  Chief  Factor  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  at 
Fort  Vancouver,  W.  T.: 

Sir  :  I  have  received  orders  from  the  acting  Commissioner 
of  the  General  Land  Office  at  Washington  City,  of  which  the 
following  is  an  extract: 

"You  further  state  that  you  await  orders  upon  the  subject 
of  what  constitutes  the  'actual  settlements,'  and  the  principles 
to  be  acted  on  in  defining  claims  under  the  treaty  of  5th 
August,  1846,  the  3d  article  of  which  is  in  the  following  [words] : 

"'In  the  future  appropriation  of  the  Territory  south  of  the 
49th  parallel  north  latitude,  as  provided  in  the  first  article  of 
this  treaty,  the  possessory  rights  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Com- 
pany and  of  all  British  subjects  who  may  be  already  in  the 
occupation  of  land  or  other  property  lawfully  acquired  within 
the  said  Territory  shall  be  respected.' 

"  The  possessory  rights  of  the  said  Company,  and  the  claims 
of  individuals  who  were  '  m  the  occupation'  of  land  at  the  date 
of  the  treaty,  are  to  be  respected;  and  while  the  American 
agents  are  anxious  to  respect  such  claims  in  good  faith,  it 
remains  for  the  British  claimants  to  prove  what  were  their 


7 


;|ti 


M 


i  ■' 

1 

h 

» 

t 

f 

? 

1 

270 

localities  and  outlines  of  claims  at  the  time  of  the  treatj,  and 
in  the  absence  of  other  and  more  reliable  evidence,  the  public 
surveys  can  respect  nothing  that  lies  outside  of  what  were 
enclosed  olaima  in  1846.  Such  course  of  proceeding  is  deemed 
valid  in  respect  to  the  claims  of  individuals,  and  Mr.  Mactav- 
ish  is  to  be  expressly  notified  by  you  that  such  will  also  be 
the  proceedings  in  regard  to  the  claim  of  the  Company  he 
represents,  in  case  evidence  from  the  Hudson's  Bay  authori- 
ties in  London,  duly  authenticated,  is  not  forthcoming;  mean- 
while, however,  you  will  cause  no  other  than  township  lines 
to  be  extended  over  the  claims,  and  the  sectional  lines  and 
corners  to  be  stopped  short  of  the  outlines  cited  by  Mr.  Bal- 
Icnden,  (thereby  making  all  such  corners  to  be  outside  of  his 
alleged  limits,)  with  the  understanding  that  such  proceedings 
is  a  mere  act  of  courtesy  for  the  present,  and  that  final  recog- 
nition of  the  extent  of  the  possessory  rights  of  the  Company 
at  Fort  Vancouver,  awaits  determination  on  future  evidence 
to  be  adduced,  or  in  default  of  production  to  you  of  such  evi- 
dence within  a  reasonable  time,  upon  the  fact  being  reported 
here,  the  department  may  feel  authorized  to  direct  the  survey 
to  be  made  to  the  enclosed  claims  as  they  existed  at  the  date 
of  the  treaty  of  1846. 

''You  are  requested  to  communicate  to  Mr.  Mactavish  that 
further  delays  in  determining  the  limits  of  such  claims  are 
incompatible  with  the  interests  of  the  public  service,  and  that 
it  will  remain  for  him  so  to  suggest  to  the  authorities  of  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company. 

"In  regard  to  the  claim  of  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricul- 
tural Company  you  will  hereafter  be  advised." 

I  am,  sir,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

James  Tilton, 
,  Surveyor  General  IF.  T- 


i^^ 


271 


FoET  Vancouver,  W.  T., 

September  12,  1855. 
The  Hon.  James  Tilton, 

Surveyor  General,  Washington  Territory,  Olympia: 
Sir  :  I  bavo  to  acknowledge  receipt  of  your  communications 
of  14th  August  and  Ist  September,  copies  of  which  have  been 
transmitted  to  London,  for  the  information  of  the  Governor 
and  Oommitteo  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company. 
Very  rospoctfully,  I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 
((Signed)  Dugald  Mactavish, 

Chief  Factor  Hudson's  Bay  Co. 


Extract  of  Annual  Report  to  General  Land  Office. 

September  20,  1855. 
*  *  ♦  ♦  I  ^ould  respectfully  urge  upon  you  a  necessity 
for  the  speedy  settlement  of  the  claims  of  the  Hudson's  Bay 
and  Pugct's  Sound  Agricultural  Companies  to  lands  in  Wash- 
ington Territory.  One  of  these  claims  is  for  about  six  town- 
ships and  the  other  for  about  two  townships,  of  the  best  lands 
in  the  Territory,  and  have  now  more  than  two  hundred  Ameri- 
can settlers  upon  them,  opening  farms.  The  public  interest 
imperatively  demands  a  speedy  adjustment  of  the  boundaries 
of  the  above  claims.  ******* 
I  am,  sir,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

James  Tilton, 
Surveyor  General  W.  T. 

This  correspondence  was  read  in  Committee  of  the  whole 
Council  on  the  24th  day  of  January,  1856,  and  after  some  ex- 
planatory remarks,  made  by  the  honorable  surveyor  general, 
the  Council  ordered  five  hundred  copies  to  be  printed  in 
pamphlet  form. 

After  which  the  Council '  passed  the  following  resolution 
unanimously: 

Resolved  by  the  Council,  That  the  surveyor  general,  James 


172 

Tilton,  is  entitled  to  the  thanks  of  this  body  for  his  prompt 
and  satisfactory  reply  to  Council  resolution  requesting  infor- 
mation relative  to  the  Hudson's  Bay  and  Puget's  Sound  Agri- 
cultural Companies. 

John  J.  Lowbll, 
Seoretary  of  the  Cowncil  of  W.  T. 


A— 6. 

Department  or  the  Interior, 
General  Land  Office,  January  28, 1865. 

Sir:  Understanding  that  claims  are  pending  before  a  Com- 
mission in  session  in  this  city,  under  the  stipulations  of  the 
treaty  of  Ist  July,  1868,  between  the  United  States  and  Great 
Britain,  for  the  final  settlement  of  the  claims  of  the  Hudson's 
Bay  and  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Companies,  I  have  the 
honor  herewith  to  lay  before  you  a  copy  of  a  communication 
dated  February  4, 1860,  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  with 
accompanying  papers  ''a,"  ''b,"  having  an  important  bearing 
upon  the  claims  in  question,  and  which  is  accordingly  respect- 
fully submitted  for  consideration. 

With  great  respect,  your  obedient  servant, 

J.  M.  Edmunds, 

Commisaioner. 

The  Hon.  Wm.  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  8tatf, 


'if, 


I  COPY.]    ,  .  . 

I        General  Land  Office, 

February  4,  1860. 
Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  to  return  herewith  the  communication 
of  80th  ultimo,  from  the  Hon.  Secretary  of  State,  and  accom- 
panying papers,  in  relation  to  the  rights  of  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company  and  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company,  under  the 
treaty  with  Great  Britain  of  1840,  which  were  referred  to  this 


278 


Uion 
3om- 


the 
this 


office  for  report  on  81st  ultimo.  In  reply  to  the  inquiry  in  that 
communication,  as  to  the  views  entertained  hy  the  Department 
of  the  Interior  in  respect  to  the  alleged  claims  of  these  Com- 
panies, and  the  measures  which  have  been  taken,  or  are  in  con> 
templation,  in  regard  to  them,  I  beg  leave  to  submit  the  following, 
as  indicating  the  action  of  the  General  Land  Office  in  the  matter. 

In  view  of  the  treaty  stipulations,  as  fully  set  forth  by  the 
Secretary  of  State  in  the  enclosed,  this  office,  up  to  a  recent 
date,  carefully  abstained  from  exercising  any  control  over  the 
lands  covered  by  these  alleged  claims,  for  the  want  of  precise 
and  authoritative  data  in  regard  to  their  validity.  Our  sur- 
veyors general  for  years  past  were  accordingly  forbidden  to 
survey  the  localities  thus  claimed,  or  to  do  any  act  by  which 
the  rights  of  these  Companies  might  be  called  in  question. 
This  course  was  pursued  up  to  a  recent  period,  when  the  autho- 
rities of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  in  Washington  Territory 
applied  for  a  survey  and  recognition  by  the  Department,  of  the 
missionary  stations  in  said  territory,  as  confirmed  by  the  Act 
of  Congress  of  14th  August,  1848,  establishing  the  territorial 
government  of  Oregon.  One  of  these  missions,  to  wit,  "  St. 
James'  Catholic  Mission,"  being  located  in  a  tract  of  country 
understood  to  be  claimed  by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  under 
the  3d  article  of  the  aforesaid  treaty  of  1846,  it  was  held, 
on  behalf  of  the  Mission,  that  the  "  possessory  rights  "  of  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company  had  become  extinct  by  reason  of  the 
expiration  of  their  charter,  in  May,  1859.  This  averment  was 
supported  by  a  reference  to  proceedings  in  the  British  Parlia- 
ment in  1B57,  and  by  despatches  from  the  British  Minister,  Sir 
E.  B.  Lytton,  to  the  Governor  of  British  Columbia  in  1858. 

Upon  a  further  examination  of  the  subject  wo  become  sat- 
isfied that  the  possessory  rights  of  said  Hudson's  Bay  Company 
had  expired,  as  claimed,  in  May,  1869,  and  the  title  of  the 
United  States  had  become  absolute  in  the  premises.  The  im- 
pediment to  the  survey  and  subdivision  of  the  lands  claimed 
by  the  Company  being  thus,  in  the  opinion  of  this  office,  re- 
moved, the  surveyor  general  of  Washington  Territory  was,  on 
the  29th  of  September,  1859,  instructed  to  extend  his  surveys 


,%.  ^Oc- 


IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


1.0 


I.I 


11.25 


^IM    12.5 


2.2 


Photographic 

Sciences 

Corporation 


i 


1.8 


33  WIST  MAIK  ^  TRKT 

WMSTIR.N.Y.  UStO 

(716)«7«.4503 


it 


(\ 


274 


oyer  them  accordingly,  in  the  same  manner  as  over  other  public 
lands  of  the  United  States. 

These  instructions,  containing  the  views  of  the  General  Land 
Office  more  at  large,  will  be  found  in  the  enclosed  copy  ''a" 
{infra.) 

In  relation  to  the  property  of  the  "Puget's  S"ound  Agricul- 
tural Company  "  this  office,  on  the  1st  of  October,  1859,  with 
a  view  of  eliciting  all  the  information  possible  on  the  subject, 
issued  instructions  to  the  surveyor  general  of  Washington 
Territory,  directing  him  to  call  upon  the  claimants,  under  the 
treaty,  to  furnish  authentic  evidence  of  their  claims,  and  to 
report  the  result,  with  his  decisions.     (Copy  *'b.") 

His  report  is  now  before  us,  dated  December  8, 1859.  It  is  ac- 
companied by  letters  from  William  F.  Tolmie,  styling  himself 
"Agent  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company,"  and  anumbe; 
of  other  papers  in  relation  to  the  claims  of  said  Company. 

After  describing  the  nature,  extent,  and  character  of  the 
claims  of  this  Company,  which  appears  to  be  an  offshoot  from 
and  similar  in  character  to  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  ex- 
hibiting no  original  derivation  of  title,  never  having  had,  or 
claiming  to  have,  received  a  grant  from  the  British  Govern- 
ment, and  examining  the  question  of  title  under  the  treaty, 
the  surveyor  general  expresses  the  opinion  that  the  Puget's 
Sound  Agricultural  Company  have  shown  no  color  of  title  to 
the  lands  claimed  by  them,  other  than  occupancy  for  au  in- 
definite period.  The  question  as  to  whether  the  Company  may 
be  entitled  to  any  consideration,  in  view  of  the  increased  value 
of  the  land  incident  to  their  occupation  and  improvement,  he 
does  not  feel  called  upon  to  decide. 

We  find  the  surveyor  general  of  the  Territory  made  a 
thorough  examination  of  the  whole  matter  on  the  spot,  after 
notice  to  all  claimants,  and  the  result  is  that  he  finds  no  sub- 
sisting legal  claims  in  any  British  subjects  under  the  treaty, 
and  that  whatever  possessions  were  had  by  claimants  under 
color  of  said  treaty,  such  claims  had  ripened  by  the  transition 
of  such  British  subjects  to  American  citizenship  under  form 
of  proceedings  known  to  our  laws,  and  as  such  will  be  respected 
under  our  enactments. 


275 


er  public 

)ral  Land 
iopy"a" 

Agricul- 
859,  with. 
B  subject, 
Ei&hington 
under  the 
18,  and  to 


I.  Itisac- 
ig  himself 
anumbe* 
npany. 
ter  of  the 
hoot  from 
ipany,  ex- 
ig  had,  or 
1  Govern- 
;he  treaty, 
le  Puget's 
of  title  to 
for  au  in- 
apany  may 
lased  value 
iremeut,  he 

'y  made  a 
spot,  after 
ids  no  sub- 
the  treaty, 
ants  under 
}  transition 
under  form 
e  respected 


It  will  not  be  maintained  that  the  treaty  of  1846  recognized 
any  other  rights  than  those  subsisting  at  the  date  of  its  ratifi- 
cation. It  of  course  contemplated  nothing  additional  to  the 
9tatU8  of  the  parties  claiming  at  that  time.  These  rights  we 
stipulated  with  Great  Britain  to  protect,  confirm,  and  main- 
tain. We  have  done  so  for  fourteen  years,  and  as  long  as  they 
were  rights;  but  when,  by  limitations  imposed  upon  their 
duration  by  the  Crown,  they  have  ceased  to  exist,  there  are 
no  longer  any  rights  left  for  us  to  recognize.  It  may  be  proper 
to  add  that,  under  the  well-settled  principles  of  public  law  as 
expounded  by  our  courts,  and  never  denied  by  Great  Britain, 
our  Government  has  held  and  still  holds  it  to  be  its  exclusive 
privilege  to  deal  with  the  adjustment  of  all  matters  infra-terri- 
torial relating  to  the  segregation  from  the  public  lands  of  any 
individual  foreign  claims  confirmed  by  treaty  or  act  of  Con- 
gress, and  in  the  present  case  the  purpose  of  a  commission,  a 
mode  of  proceeding  familiar  under  our  system,  has  been  sub- 
served by  the  action  of  the  Interior  Department  in  delegating 
authority  to  the  surveyor  general  aforesaid,  who,  as  stated, 
has  given  notice  to  all  parties  claiming  an  interest  under  the 
treaty  of  1846,  and  finds  that  there  are  no  legal  subsisting 
claims  under  that  .eaty.  This  unimpeached  proceeding,  in 
the  opinion  of  this  office,  terminates  the  necessity  for  any 
further  action,  and  leaves  the  title  in  the  Government  of  the 
United  States,  and  the  parties  holding  in  full  possession  of 
their  legal  rights. 

At  any  time  prior  to  the  expiration  and  extinction  of  these 
claims,  the  United  States  had,  under  the  treaty,  the  privilege 
or  not  of  buying  out  the  claimants;  and  for  this  purpose  a 
commission,  had  the  project  been  determined  upon,  would  have 
been  necessary;  but  this  is  not  now  the  case,  as  by  the  expi- 
ration of  the  British  charter  to  these  Companies  the  matter 
is  concluded. 

Sovereignty  changes,  but  private  property  is  unafi'ected  by 
the  change.  This  is  a  unive):sal  and  well  established  principle 
of  public  law,  therefore,  in  any  eventuality,  parties  claiming 
any  species  of  the  property  in  question,  whether  real  or  per- 
sonal, in  no  way  can  be  prejudiced  by  the  realization  of  the 


.<fj..s«i.n»«ijw»«iy^^jjj(.(,5i,jjifji55,j^5  tfmy'm'^r^.im 


mmmmmmW'fmm 


pHiHi,yHI!ijM,i.),lij«yiii  . 


276 

views  presented  in  the  foregoing,  for  the  reason  that  oar  courts 
are  open  to  them  with  all  the  legal  remedies  possessed  by  our 
own  citizens  in  controversies  respecting  real  or  personal  estate, 
and  that,  too,  under  our  system  of  jurisprudence  resting  upon 
the  same  basis  as  that  of  Great  Britain. 
All  of  which  is  respectfully  submitted. 

S.  A.  Smith,  Oommmioner. 
Hon.  Jacob  Thompson, 

Secretary  of  the  Interior. 


^  \ 


General  Land  Office, 

September  29,  1859. 

Sir:  Application  has  been  made  to  the  Department  by  the 
Rev.  J.  B.  A.  Brouillet  for  instructions  to  the  Surveyor  Gen- 
eral in  Washington  Territory  to  survey  and  set  apart  what  is 
known  as  the  "St.  James'  Catholic  Mission"  claim,  in  virtue 
of  the  confirmation  of  such  claims  by  the  first  section  of  the 
act  of  Congress  approved  March  14,  1848,  establishing  the 
"territorial  government  of  Oregon,"  in  which  it  is  declared 
"that,  the  title  to  the  land  not  exceeding"  640  acres,  then 
occupied  as  missionary  stations  among  the  Indian  tribes  in  said 
territory,  together  with  the  improvements  thereon,  be  con- 
firmed and  established  in  the  several  religious  societies  to 
which  said  missionary  stations  respectively  belong." 

The  location  of  this  mission  places  it  on  a  tract  of  country 
which  it  is  understood  has  been  claimed  under  the  third  article 
of  the  treaty  concluded  in  1846,  between  the  United  States 
and  Great  Britain,  in  which  it  is  agreed  that  "the  possessory 
rights  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  and  of  all  British  sub- 
jects who  may  be  already  in  the  occupation  of  land  or  other 
property  lawfully  acquired  within  the  said  territory  shall  be 
respected."  We  gather  from  a  connected  plat  of  the  territory 
that  the  country  on  which  these  possessory  rights  existed  is 
on  the  north  side  of  the  Columbia  river,  extending  from  town- 
ship 2  to  4  north,  range  1  west,  and  township  2  north,  ranges 
2  and  3  east,  embracing  some  60,000  acres. 


277 


Bub- 
other 
ill  be 
ritory 
ted  is 
Itown- 
langes 


It  is  claimed  on  the  part  of  the  mission  that  these  possessory 
rights  are  no7  extinct,  by  the  expiration  of  the  charter,  on  the 
30th  of  May  last,  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  and  in  sup- 
port of  this  averment  reference  is^  made  to  the  report  of  the 
Select  Committee  on  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  communi- 
cated from  the  Commons  to  the  Lords  in  the  year  1857,  and 
dispatches  of  the  16th  July  and  14th  August,  1858,  from  the 
British  Minister,  Sir  Edward  B.  Ly tton,  to  Governor  Douglas, 
of  British  Columbia. 

The  report  distinctly  shows  the  possessory  right  was  merely 
a  license  to  the  Company  to  trade — did  not  convey  title  to  the 
soil ;  and  one  of  the  dispatches  of  16th  July,  1858,  according 
to  the  transcript  furnished  by  Fev.  Mr.  Brouillet,  explicitly 
declares  that  the  legal  connection  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Com- 
pany with  Vancouver  Island  will  shortly  be  severed  by  the 
resumption  of  the  crown  of  the  grant  of  the  soil,  and  adds  that 
"  the  legal  rights  on  the  continent  opposite  terminates  in  May 
next,"  (1859.) 

The  possessory  privileges  thus  shown  to  be  extinct,  the  title 
of  the  United  States  is  disencumbered  and  becomes  absolute 
in  the  premises,  and  consequently  they  are  no  longer  an  im- 
pediment to  the  survey  of  the  lands  formerly  covered  thereby. 

Tou  will  therefore  proceed  to  extend  the  lines  of  the  public 
surveys  over  the  tract  of  country  in  question,  where  the  afore- 
said possessory  privileges  have  become  extinct,  will  make 
regular  returns  of  survey,  and  transmit  approved  township 
plats  thereof,  laying  off  the  Mission  on  the  principles  laid  down 
in  the  6th  section  of  the  act  of  Congress,  approved  27th  Sep- 
tember, 1850,  U.  S.  Statutes,  vol.  9,  page  498,  and  appropri- 
ately representing  it  on  the  plat  of  the  township  in  which  the 
same  may  be  situated,  and  will,  of  course,  properly  designate 
on  the  official  plats  the  tracts  reserved  by  the  United  States 
for  military  or  other  purposes. 

Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

Jos.  S.  Wilson, 

Acting  Commissioner. 

James  Tilton,  Esq., 

Surveyor  General,  Olympia,  W.  T. 


f     ^ 


[copy.] 


278 
«b." 


General  Land  Office,  October  1,  1859. 

Sir  :  In  the  4th  article  of  the  treaty  of  1846,  between  the 
United  States  and  Great  Britain,  it  is  declared  that  the  *<  farms, 
lands,  and  other  property  of  every  description  belonging  to 
the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company  on  the  north  side  of 
the  Columbia  river  shall  be  confirmed  to  the  said  Company." 
The  locality  claimed  under  this  article  it  appears,  from  a  con- 
nected map  of  the  territory,  covers  a  tract  of  prairie  country 
about  8  miles  east  of  Olympia,  somewhat  of  a  quadrangle 
shape,  and  embracing  about  150,000  acres,  in  townships  17, 
18,  19,  20  north,  ranges  1,  2,  3,  and  4  east. 

The  purpose  of  this  communication  is  to  direct  you  to  call 
upon  the  parties  claiming  under  this  article  of  the  treaty  for — 

1.  A  verified  copy  of  their  contract. 

2.  A  list  of  the  names  of  all  the  individuals  constituting 
said  Company,  discriminating  between  those  resident  and 
those  non-resident,  and  showing  whether  they  are  the  same 
persons  composing  the  Company  at  date  of  treaty. 

3.  For  an  authentic  showing  of  the  extent  and  exact  locality 
of  the  farms,  lands,  and  other  property  at  the  date  of  treaty. 

This  information  is  indispensable  to  separate,  understand- 
in'gly,  any  valid  claim  under  treaty  from  the  public  lands,  and 
this  proceeding  is  designed  as  preliminary  to  efi'ecting  that 
object.  You  are  instructed  to  call  upon  the  claimants  for  the 
data  to  aid  you  in  making  a  full  report  on  the  subject,  which 
you  will  do  so  as  to  reach  here  by  the  15th  or  20th  of  January 
next.  You  will  accompany  your  report  with  the  evidences  of 
claims,  which  may  be  filed  with  you,  and  transmit  a  sketch  plat 
indicating  the  localities  of  the  several  rights  which  may  be 
advanced  under  this  article  of  the  treaty,  and  showing  your 
decision  in  each  case. 

Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

Jos.  S.  Wilson, 

Acting  Comnmmner. 
James  Tilton,  Esq., 

Surveyor  General^  Olympia, 

Wa%Mngton  Territory. 


279 


A— 7. 


Her  Britannic  Majesty's  Legation, 

Washington,  May  16, 1858. 
Honorable  Lewis  Cass, 

&c.,  &c.,  &c. :     . 

Sir  :  With  reference  to  my  note  of  the  5th  instant,  respect- 
ing the  alleged  encroachments  of  the  military  authorities  of  the 
United  States  on  the  property  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  at 
Fort  Vancouver,  by  the  contemplated  erection  of  a  building 
designed  for  the  purpose  of  an  arsenal,  I  have  now  the  jonor 
to  transmit  to  you  herewith  copy  of  a  letter  from  Mr.  Theo- 
dore J.  Eckerson  to  Mr.  Dugald  Muctavish,  chief  factor  of 
the  Company,  stating  that  his  proceedings  in  this  affair  have 
been  sanctioned  by  the  Department  of  War  at  Washington. 

The  questions  involving  the  possessory  rights  of  the  Hud- 
son's Bay  Company  to  the  south  of  the  49th  parallel,  have 
been  repeatedly  brought  under  your  consideration  by  order 
of  her  Majesty's  Government,  in  a  verbal  or  written  form, 
during  the  past  year.  My  representations  have  embraced 
proposals  for  the  valuation  of  these  rights  by  arbitrators,  and 
their  purchase  by  the  United  States  Government.  As  for 
the  definition  of  the  possessions  of  the  Company,  and  their 
protection  against  usurpation  by  the  federal  authorities,  or 
for  the  summary  acquisition  of  the  said  possessions  by  the 
Federal  Government,  for  the  sum  of  six  hundred  and  fifty 
thousand  dollars,  I  have,  moreover,  had  the  advantage  of  in- 
formally discussing  these  matters  with  Mr.  Lane,  of  Oregon, 
and  Mr.  Stevens,  late  Governor  of  Washington  Territory, 
who  stated  their  intention  of  communicating  their  views  to 
the  Department  of  State.  You  will  not  be  surprised,  j;here- 
fore,  if  I  again  recommend  this  subject  to  your  attention,  in 
the  hope  that  the  Government  of  the  United  States  will  se- 
cure to  the  Company  the  enjoym;  nt  of  those  rights  which  it 
possesses  under  the  treaty  of  1846,  or  make  commensurate 


280 

compensation  to  the  Company  for  the  surrender  of  its  prop- 
erty. 
I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  the  highest  consideration,  sir, 

your  most  obedient  humble  servant, 

Napier. 


A— 8. 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  June  7, 1860. 
Lord  Lyons, 

&c.,  &c.,  &c.: 

My  Lord  :  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of 
your  Lordship's  letter  of  the  25th  May,  in  which  you  inform 
me  that  ''it  is  your  duty,  in  obedience  to  the  orders  of  her 
Majesty's  Government,  once  more  to  call  my  attention  to  the 
question  of  the  rights  secured  to  the  Hudson's  Bay  and  Puget's 
Sound  Company  by  the  treaty  signed  at  Washington  upon 
the  15th  June,  1846,"  and  in  which  you  refer  to  certain  acts 
of  the  military  authorities  in  the  Department  of  Oregon,  affect- 
ing, in  your  opinion,  the  rights  and  interests  of  the  Company. 

The  President  has  learned  with  regret  the  occurrence  of 
any  circumstances  which,  in  the  opinion  of  her  Majesty's 
Government,  would  seem  to  impair  the  faithful  execution  of 
any  provisions  of  treaty  of  1846.  But,  without  attempting 
at  present,  to  estimate  the  extent  of  the  rights  to  which  your 
Lordship  refers,  it  is  sufficient  to  say  that  the  President  does 
not  recognize  the  right  of  any  subordinate  of  any  service  to 
decide  upon  questions  affecting  the  diplomatic  engagements 
of  this  Government.  I  trust,  therefore,  that  it  will  be  satis- 
factory to  you  to  learn  that  orders  have  been  immediately 
despatched  ta  the  commander  of  the  military  division  of  Ore- 
gon, which  will  prevent  effectually  any  interference  with  the 
servantp  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  until  their  rights 
under  the  treaty  shall  be  amicably  adjusted  between  the  two 
Governments. 


281 

The  commander  of  the  military  division  of  Oregon  has  also 
been  instructed  to  reinstate  upon  their  lands,  any  of  the  ser- 
vants of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  who  may  have  been  dis- 
possessed by  his  action ;  and,  should  any  loss  have  been  sus- 
tained in  consequence  of  the  military  orders  issued  by  him, 
this  Government  will  cheerfully  make  reasonable  compensa- 
tion upon  proper  proof.  The  President  shares  the  anxiety 
of  her  Majesty's  Government  to  see  these  questions  settled, 
and  your  Lordship  may  rest  assured  that  you  will  find  at  this 
Department  every  facility  for  their  prompt,  just,  and  amica- 
ble solution. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  my  Lord,  with  high  consideration, 
your  Lordship's  obedient  servant. 

Lewis  Cass. 


A— 9. 

Washington,  June  8, 1860. 
The  Honorable  Lewis  Cass, 

&c.,  &c.,  &c. : 

Sir  :  I  have  learned  with  great  satisfaction,  from  the  note 
which  you  did  me  the  honor  to  address  to  me  yesterday,  that 
orders  have  been  despatched  to  the  commander  of  the  mili- 
tary division  of  Oregon,  which  will  effectually  prevent  any 
interference  with  the  condition  of  the  servants  of  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company,  until  the  question  of  the  rights  of  the  Company 
under  the  treaty  of  1846  shall  be  amicably  adjusted  between 
our  respective  Governments. 

I  shall  eagerly  avail  myself  of  the  facilities  which  you  are 
so  obliging  as  to  assure  me  that  I  shall  find  at  the  State  De- 
partment for  the  prompt,  just,  and  amicable  solution  of  this 
question. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  the  highest  consideration,  sir, 
your  most  obedient  humble  servant, 

Lyons. 


<f 


I      ^ 


f'i 


282 

A— 10. 

Department  of  State, 
Washington,  26th  November,  1860. 
Lord  Lyons,  &c.,  &c.,  &c.  : 

Mt  Lord:  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of 
your  note  of  the  15th  instant,  referring  to  certain  conversa- 
tions at  this  department,  in  relation  to  the  suspension,  by  army 
order,  of  the  rent  hitherto  paid  the  Puget's  Sound  Company 
for  the  use  of  land  upon  which  are  erected  the  present  United 
States  barracks  at  Fort  Steilacoom. 

In  reply,  I  enclose  a  copy  of  a  letter  from  the  War  Depart- 
ment, which  will  explain  itself;  and  in  doing  so,  I  must  urge 
upon  your  lordship  the  advantage  which  would  result  from  an 
early  settlement  of  all  the  questions  relating  to  the  rights  and 
interests  of  British  subjects  under  the  treaty.  It  has  become 
absolutely  necessary  to  extend  the  laws  and  regulations  of  the 
United  States  touching  public  lands  over  this  Territory,  and 
the  particular  question  arising  out  of  the  rent  of  Fort  Steila- 
coom is  only  one  illustration  out  of  many  of  the  difficulty 
which  belongs  to  the  existing  condition  of  uncertainty  with 
regard  to  settlers. 

Hoping  that  you  will  soon  be  enabled  by  instructions  from 
yotfr  Government  to  make  such  propositions  as  will  terminate 
this  last  open  question  between  our  respective  Governments, 

I  am,  my  lord,  with  high  consideration,  your  lordship's 
obedient  servant, 

Lewis  Cass. 


A— 11. 

Washington,  December  10th,  1860. 
Honorable  General  Lewis  Cass, 

Secretary  of  State,  ^c,  ^c,  ^c. :  \ 

Sir:  In  the  note  which  you  did  me  the  honor  to  address 
me,  on  the  25th  June  last,  you  informed  me  that  the  Presi- 


I  .?■ 


""'wwiwuffwr 


288 


160. 

eipt  of 
iversa- 
jrarwy 
mpany 
United 

Depart- 
i8t  urge 
From  an 
;ht8  and 
become 
IS  of  the 
ory,  and 
t  Steila- 
difficulty 
nty  ^ith 

ons  from 
erminate 
rnments, 
ordship's 

Cass. 


,  1860. 


to  address 
the  Presi- 


dent \ras  equally  solicitous  with  the  Government  of  her 
Majesty  for  the  amicable  and  satisfactory  adjustment  of  the 
questions  at  issue  between  the  two  countries  respecting  the 
execution  of  the  treaty  signe.d  at  Washington,  on  the  15th  of 
Juk  %  1846.  You  added  that  the  Government  of  the  United 
Statt.  would  be  ready  to  receive  and  fairly  to  consider  any 
proposition  which  her  Majesty's  Government  might  be  dis- 
posed to  make  for  a  mutually  acceptable  adjustment,  with  an 
earnest  hope  that  a  satisfactory  arrangement  would  speedily 
put  an  end  to  all  danger  of  the  recurrence  of  those  grave  ques- 
tions which  have  more  than  once  threatened  to  interrupt  that 
good  understanding'which  both  countries  have  so  many  power- 
ful motives  to  maintain. 

The  absence  from  England  of  her  Majesty's  Secretary  of 
State  for  the  Colonies  prevented  her  Majesty's  Government 
from  enabling  me  to  make  an  earlier  reply  to  this  communi- 
cation. But  her  Majesty's  Government  have  not  relaxed  in 
their  desire  to  close  the  controversy  with  regard  to  the  com- 
plete execution  of  the  treaty;  and  in  the  confident  hope  of 
settling  the  whole  matter  in  a  manner  satisfactory  and  honor- 
able to  both  parties,  they  have  directed  me  to  lay  before  you 
the  proposals,  which  I  shall  proceed  to  state  in  this  note. 

The  two  points  which  have  been  in  discussion  are,  first,  the 
fulfillment  of  the  obligation  undertaken  by  the  United  States 
in  respect  to  the  Hudson's  Bay  and  Puget's  Sound  Companies, 
and,  secondly,  the  determination  of  the  line  of  water  boundary 
intended  by  the  first  article  of  the  treaty.  With  regard  to  the 
first  point,  the  President  said  to  me,  in  the  course  of  a  con- 
versation which  I  had  the  honor  of  holding  with  him  on  the 
11th  of  July  last,  that  the  best  and  most  expeditious  mode  of 
settling  the  question  would  be  for  the  Companies  to  state  at 
once  the  lowest  sum  for  which  they  would  sell  their  rights  to 
the  United  States. 

Upon  receiving  from  me  a  report  of  this  conversation,  Lord 
John  Russell,  her  Majesty's  principal  Secretary  of  State  for 
Foreign  Afi'airs,  sent  for  the  Governor  of  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company,  and  explained  to  him  what  the  President  had  said 
to  me  on  the  subject  of  the  Companies'  claims. 
20  B 


284 


The  Governor  informed  Lord  John  Russell  in  reply,  that  if 
the  Company  irere  called  upon  to  fix  the  amount  which  they 
should  ask  for  the  extinction  of  their  claims,  they  should  name 
a  sum  of  six  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  dollars,  (9060,000.) 
He  observed  that  they  had  been  assessed  at  seven  hundred 
thousand  dollars,  and  that  in  the  United  States,  as  in  England, 
the  assessment  is  always  below  the  real  value.  The  Governor 
added  that  this  sum  of  six  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  dollars 
would  be  an  assessmo  tt  on  land  and  buildings  alone,  and 
would  not  include  any  compensation  for  nrivileges. 

Considering  all  the  circumstances,  Lord  John  Russell  re- 
commended the  Company  to  reduce  their  claim  to  five  hundred 
thousand  dollars,  and  this  sum  the  Company  have  stated  their 
readiness  to  accept. 

I  am  accordingly  instructed  to  state  to  you,  sir,  that  if  the 
United  States  Government  will  agree  to  pay  to  the  Hudson's 
Bay  and  Puget's  Sound  Companies  a  sum  of  five  hundred 
thousand  dollars  ($500,000),  in  extinction  of  all  their  claims 
against  the  United  States,  under  the  treaty  of  Juno  15,  1846, 
her  Majesty's  Government  will  be  prepared  to  accept  that  < 
amount  in  behalf  of  the  two  Companies,  and  to  release  the 
United  States  Government  from  all  further  liability  so  far  as 
regards  their  engagements  to  Great  Britain  under  the  third 
and  fourth  articles  of  that  treaty  in  behalf  of  the  Hudson's 
Bay  and  Puget's  Sound  Companies  in  Oregon,  whether  on  ac- 
count of  land  and  buildings  or  on  account  of  privileges  men- 
tioned in  the  aforesaid  articK  . 

In  reference  to  the  line  of  the  water  boundary  intended  by 
the  treaty,  with  respect  to  which,  also,  her  Majesty's  Govern- 
ment have  been  invited  by  the  United  States  Government  to 
make  a  proposition  for  its  adjustment,  I  am  instructed  to  in- 
form you  that  her  Majesty's  Government  are  glad  to  recipro- 
cate the  friendly  sentiments  expressed  in  your  note  of  the 
25th  of  June,  and  will  not  hesitate  to  respond  to  the  invitation 
which  has  been  made  to  them. 

It  appears  to  her  Majesty's  Government  that  the  arguments  ' 
on  both  sides  being  nearly  exhausted,  and  neither  party  hay- 


285 


ndcd  by 

iGovern- 

tment  to 

led  to  in- 

recipro- 
{q  of  the 

kvitation 

Igutnents 
Irty  hav- 


ing succeeded  in  producing  conviction  on  the  other,  the  ques- 
tion can  only  be  settled  by  arbitration. 

Three  questions  would  arise  thereupon : 

Ist.  What  is  to  be  the  subject-matter  of  arbitration? 

2d.  Who  is  to  be  the  arbiter? 

8d.  What  is  to  be  the  result  of  the  decision  of  the  arbiter? 

With  regard  to  the  first  point  her  Majesty's  Government 
are  of  the  opinion  that  the  question  or  questions  to  be  referred 
should  be  what  is  the  meaning  of  the  words  relating  to  the 
water  boundary  contained  in  article  Ist  of  the  treaty  of  June 
16,  1846;  or,  if  the  precise  line  intended  cannot  bo  ascer- 
tained, is  there  any  lino  which  will  furnish  equitable  solution 
of  the  difficulty  and  is  the  nearest  approximation  that  can  be 
made  to  an  accurate  construction  of  the  treaty. 

In  considering  these  questions  the  arbiter  migiii  fairly  con- 
sult all  the  correspondence  on  the  subject,  and  weigh  the  tes- 
timony of  the  British  and  American  negotiators  of  the  treaty 
as  to  their  intentions  in  framing  the  articl  ;  but  he  should 
not  depart  from  the  true  meaning  of  the  article  as  it  stands 
if  hr  "-"n  deduce  it  from  the  words  agreed  to  by  both  parties, 
and  consigned  in  a,  treaty  ratified  by  both  Governments. 

2dly.  Her  Majesty's  Government  are  of  opinion  that  a 
reigning  prince  or  sovereign  state  should  be  the  arbiter.  Her 
Majesty's  Government  propose,  with  this  view,  that  the  King 
of  theNethei'lands  or  the  King  of  Sweden  and  Norway,  or  the 
President  of  the  Federal  Council  of  Switzerland  should  be  in- 
vited to  be  the  arbiter. 

With  regard  to  the  third  point,  her  Majesty's  Government 
are  desirous  that  this  long  controversy  should  not  be  again 
thrown  loose  for  dispute.  They,  therefore,  propose  that  both 
Governments  shall  bind  themselves  to  accept  the  decision  of 
the  arbiter,  whether  he  shall  give  a  positive  decision,  or 
whether  he  shall  declare  that  he  cannot  fix  the  precise  mean- 
ing of  the  article  in  question,  but  that  he  has  laid  down  oh 
the  chart  a  line  which  will  furnish  an  equitable  solution  of  the 
difiiculty,  and  the  nearest  approximation  he  can  make  to  an 
accurate  construction  of  the  words  of  the  treaty. 

Should  these  proposals  be  accepted,  her  Majesty's  Govern- 


RHP 


■«■■■ 


^86 

ment  flatter  themselves  that  an  eqaitable  decision  may  be  ar- 
rived at,  :>nd  a  long  and  dangerous  controversy  terminated  in 
a  manner  consistent  with  the  honor  and  the  interest  of  both 
Governments. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  with  the  highest  consideration, 
your  most  obedient,  humble  servant, 

Lyons. 


A— 12. 


British  Columbia — No.  2. 


Go'py  of  Diipatch  from  the  Right  Hon.  Sir  E.  B.  Lytton,  Bart., 
to  Governor  Douglas. 

(No.  4.) 

Downing  Street,  July  16, 1858. 

Sir:  I  have  to  acknowledge  your  dispatch  No.  23,  of  the 
19th  May  last,*  enclosing  a  proclamation  which  you  had  issued 
on  ^e  subject  of  boats  and  vessels  entering  Frazer's  river  for 
trade,  and  reporting  further  on  the  state  of  the  Couteau  gold 
diggings. 

The  accounts  which  have  reached  her  Majesty's  Government 
from  other  quarters,  as  well  as  your  own,  afford  abundant  evi- 
dence of  the  critical  nature  of  the  circumstances  in  which  you 
are  placed.  They  have  much  satisfaction  in  reflecting  that 
the  maintenance  of  public  order  and  of  the  rights  of  the  Crown 
in  that  quarter  is  placed  in  the  hands  of  an  officer  so  vigilant, 
and  so  well  acquainted  with  the  country  and  the  people  as 
yourself;  and  you  may  rely  on  their  support  in  the  perform- 
ance of  this  arduous  duty,  under  the  very  peculiar  difficulties 
of  your  position. 

They  are  now  engaged  in  conducting  through  Parliament  a 

*  Vide  page  11. 


287 


3  ar- 
id in 
both 

btion, 

NS. 


,  Bart., 


1858.       \ 
;,  of  the 
id  issued 
river  for 
eau  gold 

ernment 
dant  evi- 
hich  you 
ing  that 
le  Crown 
vigilant, 
)eople  as 
perform- 
iificulties 

lliaiaent  a 


measure  for  the  purpose  of  giving  sanction  of  law  to  the  iteps 
which  the  Crown  will  be  advised  to  take  for  the  establishment 
of  regular  government  and  protection,  both  of  the  immigrants 
and  the  natives,  as  far  as  practicable,  and  they  are  also  devis- 
ing the  means  for  affording  you  the  support  of  a  military  force 
as  soon  as  this  can  be  effected. 

In  the  meantime  I  must  lay  down  a  few  rules  for  your  guid- 
ance in  the  administration  of  the  authority  which  has  thus 
devolved  on  you. 

In  strict  law  your  commission  extends  to  Vancouver  Island 
only;  but  you  are  authorized,  under  the  necessity  of  the  case, 
to  take  such  measures,  not  inconsistent  with  the  general  rights 
of  British  subjects  and  others  within  her  Majesty's  dominions, 
as  that  necessity  may  justify. 

I  approve,  therefore,  of  your  having  detached  an  officer  of 
the  customs  from  Vancouver  Island  (if  the  intention  announced 
in  your  despatch  was  carried  into  execution,)  for  the  purpose 
of  preventing  the  landing  in  Frazer's  river  of  articles  pro- 
hibited under  the  customs  laws  to  which  you  refer. 

Subject  to  these  restrictions,  her  Majesty's  Government  wish 
no  obstacle  to  be  interposed  to  the  disembarkation  of  passen- 
gers and  goods  at  the  mouth  of  Frazer's  river  by  foreign 
vessels. 

But  it  is  necessary  to  maintain  the  principle  that  the  navi- 
gation of  Frazer's  river  itself,  above  the  mouth,  is  open  in 
law  to  British  vessels  only.  American  or  other  foreign  vessels, 
therefore,  if  admitted  to  navigate  that  river,  (to  which  it  is 
the  desire  of  her  Majesty's  Government  that  no  unnecessary 
obstacles  should  be  interposed,)  should  be  required  to  take  a 
license  from  yourself,  or  such  oflScer  as  you  may  delegate  for 
the  purpose. 

But  I  must  distinctly  warn  you  against  using  the  powers 
hereby  entrusted  to  you  in  maintenance  of  the  interests  of 
the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  in  the  territory. 

The  Company  is  entitled,  under  its  existing  license,  to  the 
exclusive  trade  with  the  Indians,  and  possesses  no  other  right 
or  privilege  whatever. 


mm 


mm 


288 

It  is,  therefore,  contrary  to  law,  and  equally  contrary  to  the 
distinct  instructions  which  I  have  to  convey  to  you,  to  exclude 
any  class  of  persons  from  the  territory,  or  to  prevent  any 
importation  of  goods  into  it,  on  the  ground  of  apprehended 
interference  with  this  monopoly ;  still  more  to  make  any  gov- 
ernmental regulations  subservient  to  the  revenues  or  interests 
of  the  Company. 

I  am  compelled,  therefore,  to  disapprove  and  to  disallow,  if 
still  in  force,  the  proclamation  of  which  your  despatch  trans- 
mitted a  copy.  To  fit  out  boats  and  vessels  to  enter  Ffazer's 
river  for  trade  is  no  "infringement  of  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company,"  as  that  proclamation  terms  it.  Such  infringement 
only  commences  when  any  trading  with  the  Indians  is  attempted, 
and  no  steps  can  rightfully  be  taken  to  put  a  stop  to  legal  acts 
of  this  description,  on  the  ground  that  they  may  be  intended 
for  ulterior  purposes,  infringing  on  private  rights.  For  the 
same  reason,  to  require  a  "license  from  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company  "  of  persons  landing  in  the  territory,  is  altogether 
unjustifiable. 

I  am  obliged,  for  the  same  reason,  to  disapprove  of  the  terms 
which  you  have  proposed  to  the  Pacific  Mail  Company.  They 
ought  not  to  be  put  under  terms  to  "carry  the  Company's 
goods  and  no  other;"  nor  ought  they  to  be  prevented  from 
carrying  persons  not  furnished  with  a  gold-miner's  license. 
Such  license  can  be  properly  required  of  intending  diggers  on 
the  ground,  but  not  of  persons  merely  seeking  to  land  on  the 
territory.  Still  less  have  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  any 
right  whatever  to  exact  from  passengers  any  fee  or  head-money, 
by  way,  as  you  term  it,  of  "compensation." 

Should,  therefore,  the  Pacific  Mail  Company  have  assented 
to  these  terms,  I  must  nevertheless  require  their  being  altered 
according  to  the  tenor  of  these  instructions  for  the  future. 

I  am  fully  aware  that  before  this  despatch  can  reach  you 
the  state  of  things  may  have  materially  altered,  and  that  some 
of  these  directions  may  have  become  inapplicable.  Even  in 
that  case,  however,  they  will  serve  as  an  indication  of  the  gen- 
eral policy  which  it  is  the  intention  of  her  Majesty's  Govern- 


■/   : 


289 

m«nt  to  pursue,  and  their  wish  that  you  should  execute  in  this 
emergency.  I  hope  by  the  next  mail  to  be  able  to  add  to 
these  directions. 

I  have,  &c., 

(Signed)  E.  B.  Lytton. 

Governor  Douolas, 


^seated 
iltered 
lire. 

jh  you 
it  some 
fven  in 
le  gen- 
iovern- 


British  Columbia— No.  3. 

Copy  of  Diipatch  from  the  Bight  Hon.  Sir.H.  B.  Lytton,  Bart., 

to  Governor  Douglas. 
[confidential.] 

Downing  Stkbbt,  July  16,  1858. 

Sir  :  My  public  dispatch  of  this  date  will  have  shown  you 
the  high  value  which  her  Majesty's  Government  attach  to  your 
services,  and  at  the  same  time  will  guard  you  against  some  of 
the  errors  into  which  you  may  be  led  by  your  position  as  an 
Agent  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  while  at  the  same  time 
an  officer  of  her  Majesty's  Government. 

I  wish  to  inform  you,  confidentially,  in  addition,  that  a  bill 
is  in  progress  through  Parliament  to  get  rid  of  certain  obsta- 
cles which  interpose  to  prevent  the  Crown  from  constituting 
a  government  suited  to  the  exigencies  of  so  peculiar  a  case, 
over  the  territory  now  resorted  to,  according  to  report,  by  the 
multitudes  whom  the  gold  diggings  on  Frazer's  river  have 
attracted. 

It  proposes  to  appoint  a  governor,  with  a  salary  of-  at 
least  .£1,000  per  annum,  to  be  paid  for  the  present  out  of  a 
Parliamentary  vote.  And  it  is  the  desire  of  her  Majesty's 
Government  to  appoint  you  at  once  to  that  office,  on  the  usual 
terms  of  a  governor's  appointment ;  namely,  for  six  years  at 
least,  your  administration  of  that  office  continuing  to  merit 
the  approval  of  her  Majesty's  Government ;  this  government 
to  be  held  for  the  present  in  conjunction  with  your  separate 
commission  as  Governor  of  Vancouver's  Island. 

With  regard  to  the  latter,  I  am  not  at  this  moment  able  to 


mw^^ 


290 


specify  the  terms,  as  to  salary,  on  which  it  may  ultimately  be 
held,  but  your  just  interests  would  of  course  not  be  overlooked. 

The  legal  conection  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  with 
Vancouver's  Island,  will  shortly  be  severed  by  the  resump- 
tion by  the  Crown  of  the  grant  of  the  soil.  And  their  legal 
rights  on  the  continent  opposite  terminates  in  May  next,  at 
all  events  by  the  expiry  of  her  licence,  if  her  Majesty  should 
not  be  advised  to  terminate  it  sooner  on  the  establishment  of 
the  new  colony. 

It  is  absolutely  necessary,  in  their  view,  that  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  government,  both  of  Vancouver's  Island  and  of 
the  main  land  opposite,  should  be  intrusted  to  an  officer  or 
officers  entirely  unconnected  with  the  Company. 

I  wish,  therefore,  for  your  distinct  statement,  as  early  as 
you  can  afford  it,  whether  you  are  willing  on  receiving  the  ap- 
pointment which  is  thus  offered  you,  to  give  up  within  as  short 
a  time  as  may  be  practicable,  all  connection  which  you  may 
have  with  that  Company,  either  as  its  servant  or  a  shareholder, 
or  in  any  other  capacity. 

I  make  this  proposal  witho&t  discussing  at  present  the  nature 
and  extent  of  your  actual  connections  with  that  company,  but 
with  the  acquiescence  of  the  Governor  of  the  Company,  who 
has'seen  this  despatch. 

In  the  meantime,  and  awaiting  your  answer,  it  is  my  present 
intention,  (liable  only  to  be  altered  by  what  may  transpire  in 
future  advices  from  yourself,)  to  issue  a  commission  to  you  as 
governor ;  but  yon  will  fully  understand  that  unless  you  are 
prepared  to  assure  me  that  all  connection  between  yourself 
and  the  Company  is  terminated,  or  in  course  of  speedy  termi- 
nation, you  will  be  relieved  by  the  appointment  of  a  suc- 


cessor. 


I  make  this  proposal  briefly,  and  without  unnecessary  pre- 
face, being  fully  assured  that  you  will  understand,  on  the  one 
hand  that  her  Majesty's  Oovernmeut  are  very  anxious  to  secure 
your  services,  if  practicable,  but,  on  the  other,  that  it  is  quite 
impossible  that  you  should  continue  to  serve  at  once  the  Crown 
and  the  Company,  when  their  respective  rights  and  interests 


ely  te 
ooked. 
J  with 
Bsump- 
f  legal 
ext,  at 
should 
nent  of 

dminis- 

and  of 

Beer  or 

early  as 
;  the  ap- 
as  short 
ou  may 
eholder, 

,e  nature 
•any,  but 
kny,  who 

r  present 
spire  in 
you  as 
rou  are 
rourself 

y  termi- 
a  suc- 

jary  pre- 
the  one 

to  secure 
is  quite 

le  Crown 

interests 


291 

may  possibly  diverge,  and  when  at  all  events  public  opinion 
will  not  allow  of  such  a  connection. 
I  have,  &o., 

(Signed)  E.  B.  Lytton. 

Governor  Douglas, 

&c.,  &c. 


■f 


British  Columbia — ^No.  6. 

Copy  of  Liipatchfrom  the  Bight  Hon.  Sir  E.  B.  Lytton,  Bart., 

to  Q-ovemor  Douglas. 
[confidential.] 

Downing  Street,  July  81, 1858. 

Sir  :  As  it  is  a  matter  of  considerable  importance,  both  to 
her  Majesty's  Government  and  yourself,  that  there  should 
be  a  perfect  understanding  as  to  the  terms  on  which,  if  you 
should  so  decide,  you  would  assume  office  under  imperial  au- 
thority, I  think  it  right  to  state,  as  it  was  omitted  on  the  last 
occasion,  that  besides  relinquishing  directly  or  indirectly  all 
connection  with  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  it  will  be  indis- 
pensable to  apply  that  condition  equally  to  any  interest  you 
may  possess  in  the  Fuget's  Sound  Company. 

It  is  most  probable  that  you  have  understood  the  offer  con- 
tained in  my  confidential  despatch  of  the  16th  instant,  in  that 
sense ;  but  I  think  it  better  now  to  guard  against  any  possible 
misconception  on  the  subject  by  this  additional  explanation. 

It  is  due  to  you  to  add,  that  if,  after  reflection,  you  should 
entertain  the  persuasion  that  it  will  either  not  conduce  to  the 
public  interests  or  your  own  to  exchange  your  present  position 
for  that  of  Governor  of  British  Columbia,  the  ability  you 
..ave  displayed  whilst  holding  the  office  of  Vancouver's  Island, 
will  not  escape  the  recollection  of  her  Majesty's  Government, 
should  it  be  your  wish,  on  the  expiration  of  tho  Hudson's  Bay 


:  i 


I 


11^ 


292 

Company  license  next  year,  to  enter  into  service  of  the  Crown 
in  the  colonies. 

I  have,  &c., 

(Signed)  E.  B.  Lytton. 

Governor  Douglas, 

&c.,  &o. 


British  Columbia — No.  8. 

Copy  of  Di»patch  from  the  Right  Hon.  SirE.  B.  Lytton,  Bart., 
to  C^overnor  Douglas. 

Downing  Street,  August  14, 1858. 

Sir  :  1.  I  have  to  acknowledge  the  very  important  series 
of  despatches  of  which  the  numbers  and  dates  are  specified  in 
the  margin,  showing  the  manner  in  which  you  have  continued 
to  administer  the  government  of  the  territory  in  which  the 
recent  discoveries  of  gold  have  taken  place,  and  detailing  the 
extraordinary  course  of  events  in  that  quarter. 

2.  Her  Majesty's  Government  feel  that  the  difficulties  of 
your  position  are  such  as  courage,  judgment,  and  familiarity 
with  the  resources  of  the  country  and  character  of  the  people 
can  alone  overcome.  They  feel  also  that  minute  directions 
conveyed  from  this  distance,  and  founded  on  an  imperfect 
knowledge,  are  very  liable  to  error  and  misunderstanding. 
On  some  points,  however,  you  have  yourself  asked  for  ap- 
proval and  instructions;  on  others,  it  is  absolutely  necessary 
that  the  views  of  her  Majesty's  Government  should  be  mado 
clear  to  you. 

8.  As  to  the  steps  which  you  have  already  taken,  I  approve 
of  the  appointments  which  you  have  made  and  leported,  of  rev- 
enue officers,  Mr.  Hicks  and  Mr.  Travaillot,  of  Mr.  Perrier, 
as  justice  of  the  peace,  and  Mr.  Young  as  gold  commissioner. 
I  approve  also,  as  a  temporary  measure,  of  the  steps  which 
you  have  taken  in  regard  to  the  surveying  department ;  but 
I  have  it  in  contemplation  to  send  to  the  colony  a  head  of 
that  department  from  England. 


■  / 


r-- 


293 

4.  I  propose  selecting  in  this  country  some  person  for  the 
office  of  collector  of  customs ;  and  shall  send  you  also,  at  the 
earliest  moment,  an  officer  authorized  to  act  as  judge,  and 
who,  I  trust,  as  the  colony  increases  in  importance,  may  be 
found  competent  to  fill  with  credit  and  weight  the  situation 
of  chief  justice.  I  await  your  intimations  as  to  the  wants 
and  means  of  the  colony  in  this  sudden  rise  of  social  institu- 
tions in  a  country  hitherto  so  wild,  in  order  to  select  such 
law  advisers  as  you  may  deem  the  condition  and  progress  of 
immigration  more  immediately  require.  And  it  is  my  wish, 
that  all  legal  authorities  connected  with  the  government  should 
be  sent  from  home,  and  thus  freed  from  every  suspicion  of 
local  partialities,  prejudices,  and  interests. 

5.  I  highly  approve  of  the  steps  which  you  ha've  taken,  as 
reported  by  yourself,  with  regard  to  the  Indians.  It  is  in  the 
execution  of  this  very  delicate  and  important  position  of  your 
duties  that  her  Majesty's  Government  especially  rely  on  your 
knowledge  and  experience,  obtained  in  your  long  service  under 
the  Hudson's  Bay  Company.  You  may  in  ttirn  rely  on  their 
support  in  the  execution  of  such  reasonable  measures  as  you 
may  devise  for  the  protection  of  the  natives,  the  regulation  of 
their  intercourse  with  the  whites,  and  whenever  such  a  work 
may  be  commenced,  their  civilization.  In  what  way  the  fur- 
trade  with  the  Indians  may  be  henceforth  carried  on  with  the 
most  safety,  and  with  due  care  to  save  them  from  the  demor- 
alizing bribes  of  ardent  spirits,  I  desire  to  know  your  views 
before  you  make  any  fixed  regulations.  No  regulations  giving 
the  slightest  preference  to  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  will 
be  in  future  admissible ;  but  possibly,  with  the  assent  of  the 
whole  community,  licenses  for  Indian  trade,  impartially  given 
to  all  who  would  embark  in  it,  might  be  a  prudent  and  not 
unpopular  precaution. 

6.  I  approve  of  the  measu.'es  which  you  have  taken  for 
raising  a  revenue  by  customs,  and  authorize  their  continu- 
ance. 

7.  I  approve  also  of  your  continuing  to  levy  license  fees  for 
mining  purposes,  request'  -  you,  however,  to  adapt  the  scale 
of  these  fees  to  the  general  acquiescence  of  adventurers,  and 


;!^ 


t. 


294 

leaving  it  to  your  judgment  to  change  this  mode  of  taxation, 
(as,  for  instance,  into  an  export  duty,)  if  it  shall  appear,  on 
experience,  to  be  unadvisable  to  continue  it.  But  on  this 
head  I  must  give  you  certain  cautions.  In  the  first  place,  no 
distinction  must  be  made  between  foreigners  and  British  sub- 
jects, as  to  the  amount  per  head  of  the  license-fee  required,  (nor 
am  I  aware  that  you  have  proposed  to  do  so.)  In  the  second 
place,  it  must  be  made  perfectly  clear  to  every  one  that  this 
license  fee  is  levied,  not  in  regard  to  any  supposed  rights  of 
the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  but  simply  in  virtue  of  the  pre- 
rogative of  the  Crown,  (now  confirmed  by  the  act  of  Parlia- 
ment transmitted  to  you,  if  this  was  necessary,)  to  raise  such 
revenue  as  it  thinks  proper,  in  return  for  the  permission  to 
derive  profits  from  the  minerals  on  crown  lands. 

8.  Farther,  with  regard  to  these  supposed  rights  of  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company,  I  must  refer  you,  in  even  stronger 
terms,  to  the  cautions  already  conveyed  to  you  by  my  former 
despatches.  The  Hudson's  Bay  Company  have  hitherto  had 
an  exclusive  right  to  trade  with  Indians  in  the  Frazer's  River 
territory,  but  they  have  had  no  other  right  whatever.  They 
have  had  no  right  to  exclude  strangers.  They  have  had  no 
rights  of  government,  or  of  occupation  of  the  soil.  They  have 
bad  no  right  to  prevent  or  interfere  with  any  kind  of  trading, 
except  with  Indians  alone.  *****  But 
to  render  all  misconceptions  impossible,  her  Majesty's  Gov- 
ernment have  determined  on  revoking  the  Company's  license, 
(which  would  itself  have  expired  in  next  May,)  as  regards  Brit- 
ish Columbia,  being  fully  authorized  to  do  so  by  the  terms  of 
the  license  itself,  whenever  a  new  Colony  is  constituted. 

The  Company's  private  property  will  be  protected,  in  com- 
mon with  that  of  all  her  Majesty's  subjects  ;  but  they  have  no 
claim  whatever  for  compensation  for  the  loss  of  their  exclu- 
sive trade,  which  they  only  possessed,  subject  to  this  right  of 
revocation.  The  instrument  formally  revoking  the  license 
will  shortly  be  forwarded  to  you. 

9.  With  regard  to  the  revenue  received  from  licenses  and 
customs,  you  will  hold  it  for  the  present,  to  be  expended  on 
necessary  expenses  of  the  colony. 


295 


10.  Thb  immense  resources  which  the  information  which 
reaches  England  every  day,  and  is  confirmed  with  such  au- 
thority by  your  last  despatch,  assure  me  the  colony  possesses, 
and  the  facility  for  immediate  use  of  those  resources  for  the 
purpose  of  revenue,  will  at  once  free  the  mother  country  from 
those  expenses  which  are  adverse  to  the  policy  of  all  health- 
ful colonization.        *****♦♦ 

You  will  bear  the  principle  I  have  thus  laid  down  perpetu- 
ally in  mind,  so  as  to  apportion  the  expenditure  to  the  revenue, 
and  not  to  allow  the  former  to  exceed  the  latter. 

11.  The  most  important  objects  to  which  the  local  revenue 
can  be  applied  would  seem  to  be,  police,  public  works  to  facil- 
itate landing  and  traveling,  payment  of  the  absolutely  neces- 
sary oflScers,  and  above  all  surveying.  But  your  own  local 
judgment  must  mainly  decide.  You  will  render  accurate  ac- 
counts, to  be  both  of  receipts  and  expenditures,  and  you  will 
probably  find  it  necessary  shortly  to  appoint  a  treasurer,  which 
will  be  a  provisional  appointment. 

You  are  authorized,  if  you  think  proper,  to  give,  for  the 
present.  Government  receipts  in  lieu  of  deposits  of  gold. 

As  to  this  point,  I  wish  to  have  a  more  definite  account  of 
your  proposal. 

12.  You  are  fully  authorized  to  take  such  measures  as  you 
can  for  the  transmission  of  letters  and  levying  postage. 

13.  It  appears  by  your  despatch  that  the  staff  of  surveyors 
you  have  engaged  are  at  present  employed  on  Vancouver's  Is- 
land, the  soil  of  which  is  as  yet  held  under  the  expiring  license 
of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company ;  but  it  is  British  Columbia 
which  now  demands,  and  indeed  may  almost  absorb  the  imme- 
diate cares  of  its  Governor,  and  your  surveyor  may  at  once 
prepare  the  way  for  the  arrival  of  the  surveyor  general 
appointed  from  hence,  and  of  the  sappers  and  miners  who  will 
be  under  his  orders. 

14.  I  now  come  to  the  important  subject  of  future  govern- 
ment. It  is  possible  (although  on  this  point  I  am  singularly 
without  information,)  that  the  operations  of  the  gold  diggers 
will  be,  to  a  considerable  extent,  suspended  during  the  winter, 
and  that  you  will,  therefore,  have  some  amount  of  leisure  to 


pp—rp. 


f      ? 


t       ) 


\n 


fl96 

consider  the  permanent  prospects  of  the  colony,  and  the  best 
mode  of  administering  its  affairs. 

You  will  be  empovrered  both  to  govern  and  to  legislate  of 
your  own  authority ;  but  you  will  distinctly  understand  that 
this  is  a  temporary  measure  only.  It  is  the  anxious  wish  of 
her  Majesty's  Government  that  popular  institutions,  without 
which,  they  are  convinced,  peace  and  order  cannot  long  pre- 
vail, should  be  established  with  as  little  delay  as  practicable, 
and  until  an  Assembly  can  be  organized,  (which  may  be  wlien- 
cver  a  permanent  population,  however  small,  is  ostabjished  on 
the  soil,)  I  think,  as  I  have  already  stated  in  a  former  despatch, 
that  your  best  course  will  probably  be  to  form  some  kind  of 
temporary  council,  calling  in  this  manner  to  your  aid  such 
persons  as  the  miners  themselves  may  place  confidence  in. 

15.  You  will  receive  additional  directions  along  with  your 
commission,  when  forwarded  to  you,  and  I  have  embodied  in  a 
separate  despatch  those  regarding  the  very  important  ques- 
tion of  the  disposal  of  land. 

16.  Aware  of  the  immediate  demand  on  your  time  and 
thought  connected  with  the  pressing  question  of  the  immigra- 
tion to  the  gold  mines,  I  do  not  wish  to  add  unnecessarily  to 
the  burden  of  duties  so  onerous,  but  as  yet  our  Department 
has  been  left  singularly  in  ignorance  of  much  that  should 
enter  into  considerations  of  general  policy,  and  on  which  non- 
official  opinions  are  constantly  volunteered.  Probably  amongst 
the  persons  you  are  now  employing,  and  in  whose  knowledge 
and  exactitude  you  can  confide,  you  might  find  some  one  capa- 
ble of  assisting,  under  your  superintendence,  in  furnishing 
me,  as  early  as  possible,  with  a  report  of  the  general  capacities 
of  the  harbors  of  Vancouver,  of  their  advantages  and  defects, 
of  the  mouth  of  the  Frazer's  river  as  the  site  of  the  entry  into 
British  Columbia,  apart  from  the  island,  and  of  the  probabil- 
ities of  a  coal  superior  for  steam  purposes  to  that  of  island, 
which  may  be  found  in  the  mainland  of  British  Columbia,  and 
such  other  information  as  may  guide  the  British  Government 
to  the  best  and  readiest  means  of  developing  the  various  and 
the  differing  resources,  both  of  the  island  and  the  mainland; 
resources  which  have  so  strangely  been  concealed  for  ages, 


•'ir 


SOT 

which  are  now  so  suddenly  brought  to  light,  and  which  may 
be  destined  to  effect,  at  no  very  distant  period,  a  marked  and 
permanent  change  in  the  commerce  and  navigation  of  the 
known  world. 

The  officers  now  engaged  in  the  maritime  survey  will,  proba- 
bly, render  great  assistance  to  yourself  and  to  her  Majesty's 
Government  in  this  particular. 

17.  I  will  only  conclude  with  the  general  caution  that  inas- 
much as  your  legal  powers  are  as  yet  incomplete,  it  will  be 
well  that  you  should  therein  confine  yourself  as  much  as  pos- 
sible to  the  mere  issue  of  regulations  absolutely  required,  and 
not  seek  to  carry  into  effect  the  Crown's  general  power  of 
legislation  until  fuly  authorized  thereto. 
I  have,  &c., 

(Signed)  E  B.  Lytton. 

Governor  Douglas, 

&c.,  &c. 


British  Columbia — No.  9. 

Ccpy  of  Despatch  from  the  Right  Hon.  Sir  E.  Lytton,  Bart., 
to  G-overnor  Douglas. 


Downing  Street,  August  14,  1858. 
Sir:  Frequent  inquiries  are  addressed  to  this  office  on  the 
subject  of  the  disposal  of  land  in  British  Columbia  to  com- 
panies or  private  individuals  in  this  country.  In  consequence 
of  the  ignorance  in  which,  from  the  peculiar  circumstances  of 
the  case,  I  am  placed  as  to  your  views  on  a  subject  of  such 
great  importance  to  the  future  welfare  of  this  new  colony,  I 
have  forborne  answering  these  inquiries  or  encouraging  expec- 
tations which  might  not  be  realized.  It  is  therefore  very 
necessary  that  you  should,  at  your  earliest  convenience,  com- 
municate to  me  the  impressions  which  you  entertain  on  this 
subject,  accompanied  by  all  the  information  which  you  can 
collect. 


i 


I 


^/ 


a 


208 

In  the  meantime  you  will  take  the  following  provisional 
rules  to  guide  you. 

1.  With  regard  to  the  very  important  lubjeot  of  the  disposal 
of  land,  you  are  authorized  to  sell  land  merely  wanted  for 
agricultural  purposes,  (whenever  a  demand  for  it  shall  arise,) 
at  such  upset  price  as  you  may  think  advisable.  I  believe 
that  a  relatively  high  upset  price  has  many  advantages;  but 
your  course  must,  in  some  degree,  be  guided  by  the  price  at 
which  such  land  is  selling  in  neighboring  American  territories. 
But  with  regard  to  land  wanted  for  town  purposes,  (to  which 
speculation  is  almost  certain  to  direct  itself  in  the  first  in- 
stance,) I  cannot  caution  you  too  strongly  against  allowing  it 
to  be  disposed  of  at  too  low  a  sum.  An  upset  price  of  at  least 
£1  per  acre  is,  in  my  opinion,  absolutely  required,  in  order 
that  the  local  government  may,  in  some  degree,  participate  in 
the  profit  of  the  probable  sale,  and  that  mere  land  jobbing 
may  be  in  some  degree  checked.  Whenever  a  free  legislature 
is  assembled  it  will  be  one  of  its  duties  to  make  further  provi- 
sion on  this  head. 

2.  To  open  land  for  settlement  gradually,  not  to  sell  beyond 
the  limits  of  what  is  either  surveyed  or  ready  for  itr  lodiate 
survey,  and  to  prevent,  as  far  as  in  you  lies,  squ.  ing  on 
unsold  land.  Mineral  lands  will  require  a  special  care  and 
forethought,  and  I  request  your  views  thereon. 

3.  To  keep  a  separate  account  of  all  revenue  to  be  derived 
from  the  sale  of  land,  applying  it  to  the  purposes,  for  the 
present,  of  survey  and  communication,  which,  indeed,  should 
be  the  first  charge  on  the  land  revenue ;  and  you  will,  of  course, 
remember  that  this  will  include  the  expense  of  the  survey 
party,  (viz,  sappers  and  miners,)  now  sent  out.  I  shall  be 
anxious  to  receive  such  accounts  at  the  earliest  period  at  which 
they  can  be  furnished.  ; 

4.  Foreigners,  as  such,  are  not  entitled  to  grants  of  waste 
land  of  the  Crown  in  British  colonies.  But  it  is  the  strong 
desire  of  her  Majesty's  Government  to  attract  to  this  terri- 
tory all  peaceful  settlers,  without  regard  to  nation.  Natural- 
ization should  therefore  be  granted  to  all  who  desire  it,  and 


■i 


risional 

lispotal 
ted  for 

I  arise,) 
believe 
;es;  bnt 
price  at 
ritories. 
10  vfhich 

first  in- 
owing  it 
f  at  least 
in  order 
cipate  in 

jobbing 
gislature 
ler  provi- 

II  beyond 
DT  \cdiate 
I     ing  on 

cure  and 


299 

are  not  disqualified  by  special  causes;  and  with  naturalisation 
the  right  of  acquiring  Crown  land  should  follow. 

6.  You  will  pardon  me  if  I  enjoin  on  you  as  imperative,  the 
most  diligent  care  that  in  the  sales  of  land  there  should  not 
be  the  slightest  cause  to  impute  a  desire  to  show  favor  to  the 
servants  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company.  Parliament  will 
watch  with  jealousy  every  proceeding  connected  with  such 
sales ;  and  I  shall  rely  upon  you  to  take  every  precaution 
which,  not  only  impartial  probity,  but  deliberate  prudence  can 
suggest,  that  there  shall  be  no  handle  given  for  a  charge,  I 
will  not  say  of  favor,  but  of  indifference  or  apathy  to  the  va- 
rious kinds  of  land  jobbing,  either  to  benefit  favored  individ- 
uals or  to  cheat  the  land  revenue,  which  are  of  so  frequent 
occurrence  at  the  outset  of  colonization,  and  which  it  is  the 
duty  of  her  Majesty's  Government,  so  far  as  lies  in  them,  to 
repress. 

I  have,  &o., 

(Signed)  E.  B.  Ltiion. 

Governor  Douglas, 

AC,  &c. 


derived 
for  the 
,  should 
of  course, 
le  survey 
shall  be 
at  which 


of  waste 
he  strong 
this  terri- 

Natural- 
ire  it,  and 


21  B 


'"mwsmgmm'f^vr . 


>,^ii^;a>ww»'-'^^f^JUWilli«|.|U/-3aBISgT'" 


mmn 


CASE  OF  THE  PFGET'S  SOUND  COMPANY. 


B.— 1. 

General  Land  Office,  April  6,  1866. 
I,  James  M.  Edmunds,  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land 
Office,  do  hereby  certify,  that  the  annexed  copy  of  letter  and 
report  of  James  Tilton,  late  surveyor  general  of  Washington 
Ter  .ory,  as  found  on  pages  1  to  7  inclusive,  is  a  true  and 
literal  exemplification  from  the  files  of  this  office. 

In  testimony  whereof  I  have  hereunto  subscribed  my 
P       ^  -J    name,  and  caused  the  seal  of  this  office  to  be  affixed, 
*-      '"-'    at  the  city  of  Washington,  on  the  day  and  year  above 
written. 
'  J.  M.  Edmunds, 

Commimoner  of  the  G-eneral  Land  Office. 


1 1 


III 


!  I" 


Office  Surveyor  General  W.  T., 
Olympia,  W.  T.,  Sth  December,  1859, 

Commissioner  General  Land  Office, 

Wa»1iington  city,  D.  0. : 

Sir:  In  reply  to  yoi'r  letter  of  1st  October  last,  directing 
mo  to  call  upon  the  agents  of  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural 
Company  for  a  verified  copy  of  their  charter.,  lists  of  the  share- 
holders, and  other  information  respecting  the  lands  claimed 
by  this  Company  in  Washington  Territory,  and  to  make  a 
report  and  decision  thereon,  I  have  the  honor  to  enclose  you 
the  following  papers: 

Letters  from  William  Eraser  Tolmie,  Esq.,  Agent  Puget's 


)  1= 


301 


^^^i! 


A.NY. 


1866. 
al  Land 
tter  and 
shington 
true  and 

•ibed  my 
e  affixed, 
sav  above 


DS, 

nd  Office. 


T-, 


1859, 


directing 
^ri  cultural 

the  share- 
is  claimed 
to  make  a 
Inclose  you 

int  Puget's 


Sound  Agricultural  Company,  dated  Nisqually,  W.  T.,  29tb 
November  and  2d  December,  1859. 

A.  verifled  Copy  of  the  Company's  "deed  of  scttlomont," 
a  certified  copy  of  the  lists  of  shareholders,  plats  of  the 
Company's  lain!  claims  at  Nisqually  and  the  Cowlitz,  with 
declaration  and  aflBdavits  certifying  to  their  accuracy,  and 
various  affidavits  regarding  the  occupation  of  the  same,  viz: 

Affidavit  regarding  occupancy  of  Simon  Plomondoau,  Etionno 
Joyall,  George  Drew,  Pierre  St.  Germain,  George  B.  Roberts, 
John  R.  Jackson.     . 

Copies  of  letters  dated  11th  April,  1853,  to  Surveyor  Gen- 
eral J.  B.  Preston,  of  Oregon,  enclosing  certificates  from 
Messrs.  Edgar  and  Linklater,  of  same  date,  and  from  Mr.  M. 
T.  Simmons,  sworn  to  on  the  7th  D  cember,  1859. 

Printed  correspondence  of  surveyor  general  relative  to  Hud- 
son's Bay  and  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company's  claims, 
dated  1856,  published  by  the  Territorial  Legislature. 

Statement  of  amounts  paid  as  taxes  on  their  claim  at  Nis- 
qually, under  protest,  from  the  year  1852  until  the  year  1858, 
signed  by  Edward  Huggins,  agent  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural 
Company. 

Inventory  of  live  stock  and  other  property  in  1846,  signed 
by  Edward  Iluggins,  agent. 

A  certified  copy  of  the  description  of  the  boundary  linos  of 
the  Nisqually  claims,  signed  by  William  F.  Tolraio,  Esq., 
agent,  and  also  certified  to  by  myself  as  a  true  copy  of  tho 
original  on  file  in  my  office,  and  received  by  me  from  tho  office 
of  the  surveyor  general  of  Oregon,  upon  the  erection  of  tho 
separate  surveying  district  of  Washington  Territory. 

I  respectfully  beg  leave  to  submit  the  following  report: 

There  are  but  two  claims  in  Washington  Territory  known 
as  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company's  claims,  one 
called  the  Nisqually,  being  bounded  on  the  west  by  tho  shore 
of  Puget's  Sound,  on  the  north  by  the  forest  lands  south 
of  the  Puyallup  river,  on  thd  east  by  the  dense  woods  that 
extends  thence  to  the  Cascade  mountains,  and  on  tho  south 
[by]  Nisqually  river. 

On  this  claim  the  Company  have  now  several  thousand  sheop 


'•:'-^mmmmmm^-: 


m 


t  M,  i 


fl 


I  ! 


in  charge  of  shepherds,  and  perhaps  a  few  hundred  cattle, 
feree  naturae. 

The  other  claim,  called  the  Co\rlitz  Farms,  is  near  the  forks 
of  the  Cowlitz  river,  and  contains  about  8,600  acres  of  highly 
arable  lands. 

The  Nisqually  claim  consists  of  a  very  extensive  plain, 
being  generally  prairie,  with  arable  lands  upon  the  bottoms  or 
low  swales  of  the  prairie ;  but  its  general  character  is  not  fer- 
tile. It  is  considered  admirably  adapted  to  the  raising  of 
cattle  and  sheep;  much  of  the  land  is  also  suitable  for  grain. 
The  prairie  is  very  irregular  in  shape,  has  many  belts  of  tim- 
ber in  and  through  it,  and  a  growth  of  small  oaks  of  excellent 
quality  ^'or  ship-building  is  thinly  scattered  over  it. 

The  claim,  as  defined  by  the  map,  contains  about  167,000 
acres,  of  which  about  80,000  acres  is  prairie  or  oak  openings, 
and  the  rest  a  dense  forest  of  fir,  cedar,  and  other  coniferous 
woods.  The  bottoms  on  the  Nisqually  and  other  large  streams 
are  very  fertile. 

The  large  and  flourishing  town  of  Steilacoom,  containing 
about  300  inhabitants,  the  United  States  "Fort  Steilacoom," 
which  is  the  headquarters  of  the  Puget's  Sound  Military  Dis- 
trict, situated  about  two  miles  from  SteilacooYu,  and  about  200 
Amelrican  settlers  having  farms  in  steady  course  of  improve- 
ment, are  upon  this  Nisqually  claim  of  the  Company. 

Many  of  the  old  servants  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company, 
and  almost  all  of  those  of  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural 
Company,  have  long  since  become  American  citizens,  by  virtue 
of  our  naturalization  laws,  and  are  now  residing  upon  farms 
within  the  alleged  limits  of  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural 
Company's  Nisqually  claim,  under  the  former  donation  and 
present  pre-emption  laws. 

To  some  extent  the  same  is  true  in  regard  to  the  smaller 
claim  at  the  Cowlitz.  None  of  these  American  settlers  have 
felt  any  doubt  as  to  their  rightt,  as  against  the  Puget's  Sound 
Agricultural  Company.  An  early  settlement  of  the  matter  is 
certainly  most  desirable,  although  practically  the  Company 
have  long  since  withdrawn  from  a  hopeless  contest  with  the 
American  settlers,  and  lately  have  sought  to  secure  some  of 


303 


btle, 

orks 
ghly 

lain, 
nsor 
t  fer- 

ig  of 
;rain. 

tim- 
jUent 

,7,000 
nings, 
ferous 
reams 

aining     i 
!ooni, 
:y  Dis- 
»ut200 
iprove- 

pany, 

tural 

virtue 

farms 

Itural 

on  and 

smaller 
8  have 
Sound 
latter  is 
jmpany 
ith  the 
ome  of 


the  most  desirable  tracts,  such  as  Fort  Nisqually,  and  some 
cultivated  farms,  by  causing  their  more  trusted  agents  and 
employ&s  to  become  naturalized,  and  take  these  choice  farms 
in  tracts  of  160  acres  each,  as  pre-emptors.  This  was  appa- 
rently to  save  them  from  being  so  taken  by  those  not  in  the 
confidence  of  the  Company. 

This  Company  does  not  appear  to  have  any  charter,  nor  do 
they  exhibit  any  original  derivation  of  title  to  lands,  either 
from  the  British  Crown  or  from  the  aborigines. 

I  consider  that  there  is  no  provision  by  which  British  sub- 
jects can  derive  title  except  through  the  Crown. 

There  is  no  evidence  of  any  attempt  to  derive  title  from  the 
Crown,  and  I  apprehend  it  was  not  competent  under  the  joint 
occupation  of  this  country,  under  the  convention  known  as 
the  Treaty  of  Joint  Occupation,  for  either  British  subjects  or 
citizens  of  the  United  States  to  legally  acquire  title  to  land 
from  one  only  of  three  nations. 

It  does  not  appear  from  the  "deed  of  settlement,"  or  from 
any  other  proceeding  or  papers,  that  the  Company  had  even 
taken  possession  of,  or  claimed  by  metes  and  bounds,  the  lands 
claimed  since,  until  called  upon  in  1853,  by  Surveyor  General 
Preston,  of  Oregon. 

It  appears  that  their  occupation  was  like  that  of  any  other 
settlers  upon  wild  lands,  to  be  used  as  required  at  the  time; 
and  at  the  time  the  settlements  were  made  by  the  Puget's 
Sound  Agricultural  Company,  the  only  British  subjects  who 
could  legally  occupy  the  country  were  the  Hudson's  Bay  Com- 
pany, in  its  corporate  capacity,  and  under  its  license. 

It  is  in  proof  that  at  the  treaty  of  1846  the  Puget's  Sound 
Agricultural  Company  was  in  occupation  of  an  indefinite  range 
of  land;  that  it  had  houses  and  sheep-folds,  cattle-pens  and 
some  fencing  and  other  improvements  of  use  to  the  Company 
during  their  occupation,  but  not  of  a  permanent  character  nor 
of  particular  value  to  the  realty. 

The  4th  article  of  the  treaty  of  1846  certainly  "  confirms  to 
the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company  the  farms,  lands, 
and  other  property  of  every  description  whatsoever  belonging 
to  them;"  but  I  do  not  think  it  was  possible  for  any  land  to 


-•*'»«>w.>«ra'n» 


804 

belong  to  the  Company  at  that  date,  and  I  am  alao  unable  to 
see  how  the  title  to  land  could  be  now  granted  under  the  terms 
of  the  treaty  of  1846,  or  that  this  treaty  could  or  did  create  a 
right  which  never  existed  before. 

Therefore,  I  arrive  at  the  conclusion  that  the  Puge'/s  Sound 
Agricultural  Company  have  shown  no  color  of  title  to  the 
lands  claimed,  other  than  occupancy  of  an  indefinite  portion 
of  them.  Whether  the  Company  are  entitled  to  any  compen- 
sation for  the  artificial  value  incident  to  the  improvements 
thereon,  I  do  not  consider  as  within  the  purview  of  the  inatruc- 
tions  of  your  letter  of  the  1st  October  last,  and  consequently 
I  have  given  no  opinion  on  that  subject. 

But  with  regard  to  the  lands  claimed  as  belonging  to  the 
Fuget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company  in  Washington  Terri- 
tory, and  known  as  the  Nisqually  claims  and  the  Cowlitz 
Farms,  I  decide  that  those  lands  are,  and  should  be,  treated  as 
public  lands,  and  that  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Com- 
pany have  no  legal  title  thereto. 

Very  respectfully, 

James  Tilton, 
Surveyor  General  W.  T. 


B— 2. 


Pierre  Lagace  claims  640  acres  of  land  in  Lewis  county,  situ- 
ate as  follows,  to  wit:  on  the  shores  of  Fuget's  Sound,  north 
of  Nisqually  river,  commencing  from  an  oak  tree  marked,  and 
running  about  west  one  mile,  to  an  oak  tree  marked;  thence 
about  north  one  mile,  to  a  stake  in  the  ground ;  thence  about 
east  one  mile,  to  a  stake  erected  in  Deer's  lake ;  thence  about 
south  one  mile,  to  an  oak  tree  first  mentioned;  which  he  holds 
by  personal  occupancy. 
Attest : 

J.  E.  Long,  Recorder.  . 

Oreqcn  City,  28«A  Aprils  1846. 

Endorsed  acrosa  the  face  in  red  ink : 

Abandoned  by  the  personal   request  of  W.  F.  Tolmie  in 

favor  of  the  Puget's  Sound  Company.     (No  date.) 

Attest: 

Theo.  Maorudeb,  Recorder. 


t 


■^■1 


305 

John  Montgomery  claims  640  acres  of  land  in  Lewis  county, 
situate  as  follows,  to  wit :  On  the  shores  of  Puget's  Soand, 
north  of  Nisqually  river,  commencing  from  a  pine  tree  marked, 
and  running  about  north  one  mile,  to  a  pine  tree  marked; 
thence  about  east  one  mile,  to  a  pine  tree  marked ;  thence 
about  south  one  mile,  to  an  oak  tree  marked ;  thence  about 
west  one  mile  to  starting  point;  which  he  holds  by  personal 
occupancy. 

Attest : 

J.  E.  Long,  Recorder, 

Oregon  City,  28<A  April,  1846. 

Endorsed  across  the  face  in  red  ink : 

Abandoned  by  the  personal  request  of  W.  F.  Tolmie  in 
favor  of  the  Puget's  Sound  Company,  April  5, 1849. 
Attest : 

Theo.  Magrudbr,  Recorder. 


T. 


William  H.  McNeill  claims  640  acres  of  land  in  Lewis  county, 
situate  as  follows,  to  wit :  On  the  shores  of  Puget's  Sound, 
north  of  Nisqually  river,  commencing  from  a  pine  tree  marked, 
and  running  about  east  one  mile,  to  another  pine  tree  marked; 
thence  about  south  one  mile,  to  a  stake  in  the  ground;  thence 
about  west  one  mile,  to  an  oak  tree  marked;  and  thence  about 
north  one  mile,  to  point  of  commencement;  which  he  holds 
without  personal  occupancy. 
Attest: 

J.  E.  Long,  Recorder. 

Oregon  City,  2&th,  April,  1846. 

Endorsed  across  the  face  in  red  ink  -. 

Abandoned  by  the  personal  request  of  W.  F.  Tolmie  in 

favor  of  the  Puget's  Sound  Company,  April  5,  1849. 

Attest : 

Thbo.  Magruder,  Recorder. 


der. 


William  Pottinger  claims  640  acres  of  land  in  Lewis  county, 
situate  as  follows :  On  the  shores  of  Puget's  Sound,  north  of 


CZi:Vi*--**^»^ 


'•**'^l^^*"-C.V*.V.'*j[^t^*>w*  - 


■'smps'S'w'^'''?'' 


806 

KiRqnally  river,  commencing  from  an  oak  tree  marked,  and 
running  about  north  to  an  oak  tree  marked,  one  mile;  thence 
ahout  east  one  mile,  to  an  oak  tree  marked;  thence  about, 
south  one  mile,  to  a  pine  tree  marked ;  thence  about  west  one 
mile,  to  an  oak  tree  marke' .;  which  he  holds  without  personal 
occupancy. 

Attest : 

J.  E.  Long,  Reoordvt. 
Oregon  Out,  28eA  April,  1846. 

Endorsed  across  the  face  in  red  ink : 

Abandoned  by  the  personal  request  of  W.  F.  Tolmie,  in 

favor  of  the  Puget's  Sound  Oompany,  April  5,  1849. 

Attest : 

Theo.  Magruder,  Recorder. 


Thomas  Wade  claims  640  acres  of  land  in  Lewis  county, 
situate  as  follows,  to  wit :  North  of  Nisqually  river,  commenc- 
ing from  a  pine  tree  marked,  and  running  a^-^ut  north  one 
mile,  to  a  pine  tree  marked ;  thence  about  east  one  mile,  to  a 
pine  tree  marked ;  thence  about  south  one  mile,  to  a  pine  tree 
marked ;  and  thence  about  west  one  mile,  to  starting  point ; 
which  he  holds  without  personal  occupancy. 

Attest : 

J.  E.  Long,  Recorder. 

Oregon  City,  27<A  April,  1846. 

Endorsed  across  the  face  in  red  ink : 

Abandoned  by  the  personal  request  of  W.  F.  Tolmie,  in 
favor  of  the  Puget's  Sound  Oompany,  April  5, 1849. 
Attest : 

Theo.  Magruder,  Recorder. 


i  n 


Donald  McAuIay  claims  640  acres  of  land  in  Lewis  county, 
situate  as  follows,  to  wit :  On  the  shores  of  Puget's  Sound, 
north  of  Nisqually  river,  commencing  from  an  oak  tree  marked, 
and  running  about  north  one  mile,  to  a  stake  in  the  ground ; 


807 

thence  about  vest  one  mile,  to  a  stake  in  the  ground ;  thence 
abeut  south  one  mile,  to  a  pine  tree  marked ;  and  thence  about 
east  one  mile,  to  point  of  commencement ;  which  he  holds  bj 
personal  occupancy. 
Attest : 

J.  E.  Long,  Recorder. 
Oregon  City,  2Sth  April,  1846. 

Endorsed  across  the  face  in  red  ink : 

Abandoned  by  the  personal  request  of  W.  F.  Tolmie,  in 
favor  of  the  Puget's  Sound  Company,  April  5,  1849. 
Attest : 

Theo.  Magruder,  Recorder. 


Thomas  Linklater  claims  640  acres  of  land  in  Lewis  county, 
situate  as  follows,  to  wit :  Commencing  from  the  stake  at  Nis- 
qually  landing-place,  forming  southwestern  boundary  of  W. 
F.  Tolmie's  claim,  and  running  about  south,  following  the  in- 
dentation of  the  coast  one  mile,  to  a  pine  tree  marked ;  thence 
about  east  one  mile,  to  a  pine  tree  marked;  thence  about 
north  one  mile,  to  a  stake  in  the  ground ;  and  thence  about 
west  one  mile,  to  starting  point :  which  he  holds  by  personal 
occupancy. 

Attest : 


Oregon  City,  2'Ith  April,  1846. 


J.  E.  Long,  Recorder. 


Endorsed  across  the  face  in  red  ink  : 

Abandoned  by  the  personal  request  of  W.  F.  Tolmie,  in 

favor  of  the  Puget's  Sound  Company,  April  5,  1849. 

Attest : 
«  .        Theo.  Magruder,  Recorder. 


George  Blenkinsop  claims  640  acres  of  land  in  Lewis  county, 
situate  as  follows,  to  wit :  Commencing  from  a  stake  driven 
into  the  ground,  near  the  road  from  Fort  Nisqually  to 
McLeod's  house,  and  running  about  north  one  mile,  to  an  oak 


•^rmmm/mm"-- 


808 


tree  marked ;  thence  an  easterly  direction  one  mile,  to  a  stake 
in  the  ground ;  thence  about  south  one  mile,  to  a  stake  in  the 
ground ;  and  finally  about  west  one  mile,  to  starting  point ; 
which  he  holds  without  personal  occupancy. 
Attest : 

J.  E.  Long,  Recorder. 
Oregon  City,  27th  April,  1846. 

Endorsed  across  the  face  in  red  ink : 

Abandoned  by  the  personal  request  of  W.  F.  Tolmie,  in 
favor  of  the  Puget's  Sound  Company,  April  5,  1849. 
Attest : 

Theo.  Magruder,  Recorder. 


Augustus  Wellings  claims  640  acres  of  land  in  Lewis  county, 
situate  as  follows,  to  wit:  On  the  shores  of  Puget's  Sound, 
north  of  Nisqually  river,  commencing  from  a  pine  tree  markr .  , 
and  running  about  north  one  mile  to  an  oak  tree  marked ; 
thence  about  east  one  mile  to  a  pine  tree  marked ;  thence 
about  south  one  mile  to  a  pine  tree,  and  thence  about  west  one 
mile  to  point  of  commencement ;  which  he  holds  by  personal 
occupancy. 

Attest: 

J.  E.  Long,  Recorder. 

Oregon  City,  28th  April,  1846. 

Endorsed  across  the  face  in  red  ink : 

Abandoned  by  the  personal  request  of  W.  F.  Tolmie,  in 
favor  of  the  Puget's  Sound  Company.    (No  date.) 
Attest: 

Theo.  Magruder,  Recorder. 


Joseph  Maurice  claims  640  acres  of  land  in  Lewis  county, 
situate  as  follows,  to  wit:  Commencing  from  a  stake  driven 
into  *the  ground  on  the  shores  of  Puget's  Sound,  north  of  Nis- 
qually river;  thence  running  about  north  one  mile  to  a  marked 
stake;  thence  about  east  one  mile  to  a  stake;  thence  about 


809 

south  one  mile  to  a  marked  stake;  and,  lastly,  about  west  one 
mile  to  starting  point ;  which  he  holds  without  personal  occu- 
pancy. 

Attest: 

J.  E.  Long,  Recorder. 
Orbgon  City,  28<A  April,  1846. 

Endorsed  across  the  face  in  red  ink : 

Abandoned  by  the  personal  request  of  W.  F.  Tolmie,  in 
favor  of  the  Puget's  Sound  Company,  April  5,  1849. 
Attest : 

Theo.  Maqruder,  Recorder. 


Narcisse  Fallardeans  claims  640  acres  of  land  in  Lewis 
county,  situate  as  follows,  to  wit :  On  the  shores  of  Puget's 
Sound,  north  of  Nisqually  river,  commencing  from  an  oak 
tree  marked,  and  running  about  north  one  mile  to  an  oak  tree 
marked;  thence  about  east  one  mile  to  an  oak  tree  marked; 
thence  about  south  to  a  pine  tree;  thence  about  west  one  mile 
to  point  of  commencement ;  which  said  claim  is  held  by  per- 
sonal occupancy. 
Attest : 

J.  E.  Long,  Recorder. 

Oregon  City,  28<7i  April,  1846. 

Endorsed  across  the  face  in  red  ink : 

Abandoned  by  the  personal  request  of  W.  F.  Tolmie,  in 
favor  of  the  Puget's  Sound  Company,  April  5,  1849. 

Attest : 

Theo.  Mag  RUDER,  ^ecorier. 


Charles  Dodd  claims  640  acres  of  land  in  Lewis  county, 
situate  as  follows,  to  wit:  On  the  shores  of  Puget's  Sound, 
north  of  Nisqually  river,  commencing  from  an  oak  tree  marked, 
and  running  about  north  one  mile  to  a  stake  in  the  ground ; 
thence  about  west  one  mile  to  a  pine  tree  marked;  thence 


il 


810 

about  south  one  mile  to  a  stake  in  the  ground;  and  thence 
about  cast  one  mile  to  starting  point ;  wL^'ch  he  holds  without 
personal  occupancy. 
Attest: 

J.  E.  Long,  Recorder. 
Oregon  City,  28th  April,  1846. 

Endorsed  across  the  face  in  red  ink : 

Abandoned  by  the  personal  request  of  W.  F.  Tolmie,  in 

favor  of  the  Puget's  Sound  Company,  April  5,  1849. 

Attest : 

Theo.  Magrudbr,  Recorder. 


William  Fraser  Tolmie  claims  640  acres  of  land  in  Lewis 
county,  situate  as  follows,  to  wit:  Commencing  from  a  stake 
marked  and  driven  into  the  ground  at  the  southern  extremity 
of  the  flat  ground  at  Fort  Nisqually  landing-place,  and  run- 
ning from  thence  along  the  line  of  coast  half  a  mile  in  a  north- 
erly direction  to  a  pine  tree  marked ;  thence  two  miles  in  an 
easterly  direction  to  a  pine  stump  marked;  thence  about  half 
a  mile  (across  Scquallitch  stream)  to  a  pine  tree  marked,  in  a 
southerly  direction;  and,  lastly,  about  west  two  miles  to  point 
of  commencing;  which  he  holds  by  personal  occupancy. 
Attest: 

J.  E.  Long,  Recorder. 

Oregon  City,  27<A  April,  1846. 

Endorsed  across  the  face  in  red  ink : 

Abandoned  by  the  personal  request  of  the  claimant,  in  favor 
of  the  Puget's  Sound  Company,  April  5,  1849. 
Attest: 

Theo.  Magrudbr,  Recorder. 


Edward  Alin  claims  640  acres  of  land  in  Lewis  county, 
situate  as  follows,  to  wit:  Commencing  from  the  pine  stump 
forming  the  northeast  boundary  of  W.  F.  Tolmie's  claim,  and 


i 


\  I 


811 

running  about  north  ono  mile  contiguous  to  John  Kennedy's 
claim  to  a  marked  stake;  thence  about  east  one  mile  to  a  stake 
in  the  ground  and  marked;  thence  about  south,  to  a  pine  tree 
marked,  one  mile;  and  thence  about  west  one  mile  to  pine 
stump  aforesaid ;  which  he  holds  by  personal  occupancy. 
Attest: 

J.  E.  Long,  Recorder. 
Oregon  City,  27<A  April,  1846. 

E. horsed  across  tho  face  in  red  ink : 

Abandoned  by  the  personal  request  of  Wm.  F.  Tolmie,  in 
favor  of  the  Puget's  Sound  Company,  April  5,  1849. 
Attest: 

Theo.  Magruder,  Recorder. 


John  Wark  claims  640  acres  of  land  in  Lewis  county,  situate 
as  follows,  to  wit:  Commencing  from  a  marked  stake  driven 
into  the  ground  along  southern  line  of  William  F.  Tolmie's 
claim,  and  running  from  thence  about  south  one  mile  to  a  pine 
tree  marked ;  thence  about  east  one  mile  to  an  oak  tree  marked ; 
thence  about  north  one  mile  to  an  oak  tree  marked;  and  thence 
about  west  one  mile  to  starting  point;  which  he  holds  by  per- 
sonal occupancy. 
Attest: 

J.  E.  Long,  Recorder. 

Oregon  City,  21th  April,  1846. 

Endorsed  across  the  face  in  red  ink : 

Abandoned  by  the  personal  request  of  Wm.  F.  Tolmie,  in 

favor  of  the  Puget's  Sound  Company,  April  5,  1849. 

Attest : 

Theo.  Magruder,  i2ecort?er. 


John  Kennedy  claims  640  acres  of  land  in  Lewis  county, 
situate  as  follows,  to  wit :  Commencing  from  a  stake  in  the 
ground  along  northern  boundary  of  W.  F.  Tolmie's  claim,  and 


' 


812 

running  about  north  one  milo  to  a  pino  tree  marked;  thence 
about  cast  one  mile  to  a  stnlce  in  the  ground;  thence  about 
south  one  mile  to  the  pine  stump  forming  the  northeast  bound- 
ary of  W.  F.  Tolmie's  claim ;  about  west  one  mile  to  point  of 
commencement ;  which  he  holds  without  personal  occupancy. 

Attest : 

J.  E.  LONO,  Recorder. 

Oregon  City,  21th  April,  1846. 

Endor!)P(]  across  the  face  in  red  ink :  • 

Abandoned  by  the  personal  request  of  Wm.  P.  Tolmie,  in 
favor  of  the  Puget's  Sound  Company,  April  5,  1840. 
Attest: 

TnEO.  Maoiiudeii,  Iteeordc 


Bivzil  Broussoau  del  la  Flour  claims  040  acrc?j  of  land  in 
Lewis  county,  situate  as  follows,  to  wit:  On  tlio  shores  of 
Puget's  Sound,  north  of  Nisqually  river,  commencing  from  an 
oak  tree  marked,  and  running  about  north  one  milo  to  a  pine 
tree  marked  ;  thencvD  running  aboiit  west  one  milo  to  an  oak 
tree  marked;  thence  about  south  one  milo  to  an  oak  tree 
marked;  thence  about  cast  one  mile  to  starting  point;  which 
he  holds  by  personal  occupancy. 

OuEOON  City,  28/7*  April,  1840. 
Attest: 

J.  E.  LoNO,  Recorder. 

Endorsed  across  the  face  in  red  ink:  « 

Abandoned  by  the  personal  request  of  W.  P.  Tolmio,  in  favor 
of  the  Puget's  Sound  Company,  April  5, 1840. 
Attest: 

i  TiiEO.  Ma(JRUDKII,  Uecorder. 


Oride  AlLrd  claims  640  acres  of  land,  situate  as  follows, 
to  wit:  On  the  shores  of  Puget's  Sound,  north  of  Nisqually 
river,  commencing  from  a  pine  tree  marked  and  running  about 


»<4^ 


SSs 


818 


;  thence 
ce  about 
It  bound- 
I  point  of 
cupancy. 

corder. 


rolmie,  in 

'•corde 


of  land  in 
shores  of 
VI  from  an 
0  to  a  pine 
0  to  an  oak 
n  oak  tree 
int;  which 


Iccorder. 

0 

io,  in  favor 
Recorder. 


as  follows, 
'  Nisqually 

laiug  about 


north  one  milo  to  a  pine  tree  marked;  thence  about  west  one 
mile  to  an  oak  tree  marked;  thence  about  south  one  mile  to  a 
pine  tree  marked,  and  thence  about  oast  one  milo  to  starting 
point;  which  ho  holds  by  personal  occupancy. 
Oreoon  Citv,  2Sth  April,  1846. 
Attest: 

J.  E.  LoNO,  Recorder. 
Endorsed  ncrcss  the  fnco  in  red  ink: 

Abandoned  by  the  personal  request  of  W.  F.  Tolmio  in  fovor 
of  the  Puget's  Sound  Company,  April  5,  1841). 
Attest: 

Theo.  Maoruder,  llecorder. 

State  of  Oregon,  Departmknt  of  State. 
To  all  to  whom  these  presents  shall  come,  greeting: 

I,  Samuel  E.  Ma\s  Secretary  of  State  of  the  State  of  Oregon, 
hereby  certify  tlic  foregoing  to  be  a  correct  copy  and  transcript 
of  the  entire  orij^inal  record  entries  of  the  notice  of  claims  of 
Pierre  Lagacc,  John  Montgomery,  Wm.  H.  McNeill,  William 
Pottinger,  Augustus  Wellinga,  Joseph  Maurice,  Nurcisse  Fal- 
lardeans,  Charles  Dodd,  Thomas  Wade,  Donald  McAulay, 
Thomas  Linklater,  George  Blonkensop,  William  Frascr  Tol- 
mie,  Edward  Alin,  John  Wark,  John  Kennedy,  Bazil  Brous- 
seau  do  la  Fleur,  and  Ovide  Allard,  and  the  abandi  iimcnt  of 
the  same,  as  the  same  arc  recorded  in  pages  10,  11,  12, 13,  14, 
l.'i,  and  IG  in  book  No.  2  of  the  Land-Claim  Record,  kept  under 
the  provisional  government  of  Oregon,  which  said  book  and 
original  record  are  now  in  my  possession  as  lawful  custodian 
thereof.  I  further  certify  that  after  dilijiient  search  for  the 
same  I  am  unable  to  find  in  said  records  any  further  notice  of 
any  other  claim  in  which  the  Puget's  Sound  Company  have  or 
had,  or  claim  to  have,  any  interest  under  the  laws  of  such  pro- 
visional government. 

In  testimony  whereof  I  hereunto  sign  my  name  and 

P         -,  affixed  the  seal  of  the  State  of  Oregon,  this  19th  day 

'-      "of  December,  A.  D.  1866. 

Samuel  E.  May, 
•  ,  ■  '  Secretary  of  State. 


^-«|,S!PWJ«iiV!V^^-*«mi»t- 


314 


B— 3. 


/  ■' 


'■■  it 


Office  A.  A.  Q.  M., 
Fort  Steilacoom,  W.  T.,  Juli/  26,  1859. 
General : 

Referring  to  the  existing  unsettled  questions  involved  in 
the  rights  of  property  to  the  large  tract  of  land  in  this  Ter- 
ritory claimed  by  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company, 
under  the  latitudinous  interpretation  of  the  fourth  article 
of  the  treaty  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain, 
concluded  15th  June,  1846,  and  to  the  reported  immediate 
adjustment  and  determination  of  those  rights  in  question  by 
our  Government,  I  would  most  respectfully  call  your  attention 
to  Fort  Steilacoom  military  reservations,  and  also  to  the 
"public  landing"  on  the  beach  of  Puget's  Sound,  where  con- 
venience requires  that  some  of  the  supplies  for  this  garrison 
should  be  delivered. 

When  this  post  was  first  established,  (some  ten  years  since,) 
in  the  then  great  uncertainty  about  the  extent  and  validity  of 
the  claims  of  the  said  Company,  four  old  log  houses,  occupy- 
ing part  of  the  ground  selected  for  the  post,  were  hired  for 
the  public  service  at  $600  per  annum,  from  the  agent  of  that 
Company,  under  his  general  claim  covering  from  80,000  to 
100,000  acres  of  land  in  this  county  of  Pierce;  a  convenient 
landing  on  the  contiguous  beach  was  designated  by  the  ofiicer 
in  charge,  and  a  good  wagon  road  to  it,  about  IJ  miles  in 
length,  was  constructed  by  the  troops  of  the  garrison. 

When  it  became  necessary,  from  the  large  and  increasing 
importance  of  the  post,  as  a  military  station,  to  erect  new  quar- 
ters in  1857,  these  four  old  log  houses  were  torn  down  as  utterly 
dilapidated  and  worthless.  The  agent  of  the  Puget's  Sound 
Agricultural  Company,  however,  then  claimed  ground-rent, 
and  as  no  action  had  been  taken  by  our  Government  in  the 
matter,  an  agreement  was  entered  into  with  him,  dated  July 
30,  1857,  (a  copy  of  which  is  in  your  office,)  for  the  lease  of 
a  tract  of  land  containing  640  acres,  to  be  used  as  a  military 
reservation,  for  the  yearly  rent  of  six  hundred  dollars,  said 


•iiH 


815 


[creasing 
sw  quar- 

[s  utterly 
s  Sound 
[nd-rent, 
it  in  the 
[ted  July 
lease  of 
military 
iars,  said 


rent  to  be  paid  quarterly,  unless  disapproved  or  discontinued 
by  the  Quartermaster  General  of  the  United  States  Armyt 
The  lease  is  for  ten  years,  and  has  been  approved  and  sanc- 
tioned by  General  Clark,  the  then  commanding  officer  of  this 
department.  ' 

This  claim  of  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company  is 
now  dotted  over  with  many  squatters,  who,  regardless  of  the 
assumption  of  ownership  by  the  said  Company,  occupy  and 
cultivate  numerous  tracts  of  land,  intending,  it  is  understood, 
eventually  to  claim  as  pre-emptors,  although  our  Government 
has  hitherto  permitted  a  quasi  or  indirect  recognition  of  the 
claim  of  this  Company,  so  far  as  to  instruct  the  surveyor  gen- 
eral of  the  Territory  not  to  have  public  surveys  made  of  any 
portion  of  the  district  of  country  embraced  by  this  claim. 

This  military  reservation,  now  under  lease  from  the  agent 
of  the  said  Company,  is  not  free  from  squatters,  and  one  of 
them  has  attempted  to  assume  ownership  over  the  '*  public 
landing  "  required  for  the  use  of  the  post,  and  has  prohibited 
the  landing  there  of  Government  supplies.  I  enclose  you  here- 
with copies  of  my  two  letters  to  this  latter  individual,  to 
neither  of  which  have  I  as  yet  received  a  reply. 

Under  the  peculiar  circumstances  of  the  case,  therefore,  in 
order  to  preclude  all  future  disputes  and  controversies,  I  would 
most  respectfully  but  urgently  recommend  that  in  the  dispo- 
sition by  our  Government  of  the  land  claim  in  question,  thia 
military  reservation  be  officially  and  formally  declared  such,  by 
its  present  metes  and  bounds,  and  that  the  said  landing,  near  the 
mouth  of  Steilacoora  creek,  be  included  in  the  military  reserva- 
tion, and  the :  jad  leading  thereto  declared  a  military  road ;  and, 
in  view  of  the  grave  doubts  and  uncertainty  as  to  whether  the 
said  Pugcc's  Souuu  Agricultural  Company  have  any  manorial 
rights,  at  le.'-st  beyond  those  in  present  actual  use  and  occu- 
pation, I  would  also  take  tho  liberty  to  recommend  that  I  bo 
directed  to  cease  paying  the  agent  of  the  said  Company  for 
the  present  ground-rent,  until  further  instructions  may  bo 
given  on  tho  subject. 

Hoi'>ing  ih\.  above  may  meet  with  your  approval,  I  have  tho 


:SJtii-    ' 


816 

honor  to  be,  General,  with  much  respect,  jour  most  obedient 
servant, 

E.  J.  Harvie, 
let  Lieut.  9th  Infy,  A.  A.  Q.  M. 
Maj.  Gen'l  T.  S.  Jessup, 

Q.  M.  Q.  U.  S.  A.,  Washington  city,  D.  C. 


/ 


B-4. 


;i  I 


f  r- 


SUPREME  COURT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,  No.  73: 

The  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company,  Plaintiff  in  Error^ 
vs.  The  County  of  Pierce. 

IN  ERROR  TO  THE  SUPREME  COURT  OF  WASHINGTON  TERRITOliY. 

United  States  of  America,  ss:  i 

The  President  of  th^  United  States  to  the  Honorable  the  Judges 
of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  Territory  of  Washington,  greeting : 
Because  in  the  record  and  proceedings,  as  also  in  the  rendi- 
tion of  the  judgment  of  a  plea  which  is  in  the  said  supreme 
court  before  you,  between  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural 
Company  and  the  County  of  Pierce,  a  manifest  error  hath 
happened,  to  the  great  damage  of  the  said  Puget's  Sound 
Agricultural  Company,  as  by  their  complaint  appears,  we  being 
willing  that  error,  if  any  hath  been,  should  be  duly  corrected, 
and  full  and  speedy  justice  done  to  the  parties  aforesaid  in  this 
behalf,  do  command  you,  if  judgment  be  therein  given,  that 
then,  under  your  seal,  distinctly  and  openly,  you  send  the  re- 
cord and  proceedings  aforesaid,  with  all  things  concerning  the 
same,  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  together 
with  this  writ,  so  that  you  have  the  same  at  Washington,  on  the 
second  Monday  of  December  next,  in  the  said  Supreme  Court, 
io  be  then  and  there  hold,  that,  the  record  and  proceedings 
aforesaid  being  inspected,  the  said  Supreme  Court  may  cause 
further  to  be  done  therein,  to  correct  that  error,  what  of  right 


Hi 


317 


idient 


M. 


No.  73. 
.  Error  J 

RITOHT. 


e  Judges 
reeling : 
le  rendi- 
supreme 
(cultural 
ror  hath 
s  Sound 
we  being 
orrccted, 
id  in  this 
ven,  that 
d  the  re- 
ruing  the 
together 
on,  on  the 
me  Court, 
ocecdings 
nay  cause 
t  of  right 


and  according  to  the  laws  and  customs  of  the  United  States 
should  be  done. 

Witness  the  honorable  Roger  B.  Taney,  Chief  Justice  of 
the  said  Supreme  Court,  the  20th  day  of  January,  in  the  year 
of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  sixty-two. 

[seal.]  Richard  Lane, 

Clerk  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  Territory  of  Washington. 

Allowed  this  20th  day  of  January,  A.  D.  1862, 
(Signed)  C.  C.  Hewitt, 

Chief  Justice  of  W.   T. 
(Signed)  E.  P.  Oliphant, 

Associate  Justice  of  W.  T. 


Territouy  of  Washington,  \     . 
Office  Clerk  Supreme  Court,  j 

I,  Richard  Lane,  clerk  of  the  supreme  court  of  the  Terri- 
tory of  Washington,  do  hereby  certify  that  the  foregoing  is  a 
full,  true,  complete,  and  corect  copy  of  the  orig'nal  writ  of 
error  in  the  case  of  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company 
vs.  Pierce  county,  filed  in  my  office  on  the  21st  day  of  January, 
A.  D.  1862. 

In  testimony  whereof,  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  af- 
P^        -J  fixed  the  seal  of  the  supreme  court  of  the  Territory 
of  Washington,  at  Olympia,  W.  T.,  on  this  29th  day 
of  August,  A.  D.  1862. 

Richard  Lane, 
Clerk  Sup.  Court  of  Wash.  Territory. 


The  United  States  of  America  to  the  county  of  Pierce,  greeting : 
You  are  hereby  cited  and  admonished  to  be  and  appear  at  a 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  to  be  holden  at  Washing- 
ton, on  the  second  Monday  of  December  next,  pursuant  to  a 
writ  of  error  filed  in  the  clerk's  office  of  the  supreme  court  of 
the  Territory  of  Washington,  wherein  the  Puget's  Sound  Agri- 


^taJuOli 


"-"-  '•T*'"^-- 


818 


cultural  Company  is  plaintiflF  in  error  and  you  are  defendant 
in  error,  to  show  cause,  if  any  there  be,  why  judgment  ren- 
dered against  the  said  plaintiff  in  error,  as  in  the  said  writ  of 
error  mentioned,  should  not  be  corrected,  and  why  speedy 
justice  should  not  be  done  to  the  parties  in  that  behalf. 

Witness  the  Honorable  C.  C.  Hewitt,  chief  justice  of  the 
supreme  court  of  the  Teritory  of  Washington,  this  20th  day 
of  January,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hun- 
dred and  sixty-two. 

(Signed)  0    C.  Hewitt,  C.  J.  W.  T. 

(Signed)  ji.  P.  Oliphant, 

Asso.  Jus.  S.  Court  W.  T. 

On  this  Z  ly  of  January,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one 

thousand  eig  .  mndred  and  sixty-two,  personally  appeared 
Thomas  Prather  before  me,  the  subscriber,  a  United  States 
commissioner,  and  makes  oath  that  he  delivered  a  true  copy 
of  the  within  citation  to  George  Gallagher,  auditor  of  Pierce 
county. 

(Signed)  Thomas  Prather, 

(Signed)    .  R.  M.  Walker, 

.     ,  ,  U.  S.  Com.  2d  Judl.  Bist.,  W.  T. 


Territory  of  Washington,  \     . 

Office  Clerk  Supreme  Court,  j      '  • 

I,  Richard  Lane,  clerk  of  the  supreme  court  of  the  Terri- 
tory of  Washington,  do  hereby  certify  that  the  foregoing  is  a 
full,  correct,  and  complete  copy  of  the  original  citation  in 
the  case  of  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company  vs.  Pierce 
County,  filed  in  my  office  on  the  21st  day  of  January  A.  D. 
1862.  •        ^ 

In  testimony  whereof,  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and 
|-         -|  affixed  the  seal  of  the  said  supreme  court  of  Wash- 
ington Territory,  at  Olympia,  on  this  29th  day  of 
August,  A.  D.  1862. 
*  Richard  Lane, 

Clerk  Supreme  Court  of  Washington  Territory/. 


I  ;■. 


819 


id  and 
Wash- 
day of 


Know  all  men  by  these  presents,  that  we,  John  R.  Fleming, 
U.  G.  Warbass,  Jos.  Cushman,  and  Isaac  Lightncr,  are  held 
and  firmly  bound  unto  the  county  of  Pierce  in  the  full  and 
just  sum  of  twelve  thousand  dollars,  to  bo  paid  to  the  said 
county  of  Pierce  or  its  certain  attorney,  to  which  payment, 
well  and  truly  to  be  made,  we  bind  ourselves,  our  heirs,  exe- 
cutors, and  administrators,  jointly  and  severally,  by  these  pre- 
sents. 

Sealed  with  our  seals  and  dated  this  twentieth  day  of  Jan- 
uary, in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and 
sixty-two. 

Whereas  lately,  at  a  term  of  the  supreme  court  for  the 
Territory  of  Washington,  begun  and  held  at  Olympia,  on  the 
first  Monday  of  December,  1861,  in  a  suit  depending  in  said 
court  between  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company  and 
the  county  of  Pierce,  a  judgment  was  rendered  against  the 
said  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company,  and  the  said  Puget's 
Sound  Agricultural  Company  having  obtained  a  writ  oPerror 
and  filed  a  copy  thereof  in  the  clerk's  ofiice  of  the  said  court 
to  reverse  the  judgment  in  the  aforesaid  suit,  and  a  citation 
directed  to  the  said  county  of  Pierce,  citing  and  admonishing 
to  be  and  appear  at  a  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States 
to  be  holden  at  Washington,  the  second  Monday  of  December 
next : 

Now,  the  condition  of  the  above  obligation  is  such,  that  if 
the  said  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company  shall  prosecute 
their  said  writ  of  error  to  efiect,  and  answer  all  damages  and 
costs  if  they  fail  to  make  their  plea  good,  then  the  above  ob- 
ligation to  be  void ;  else  to  remain  in  full  force  and  virtue. 
(Signed)  Jno.  R.  Fleming,     [Seal.] 

U.  G.  Wardass,       [Seal.] 
Jos.  Cushman,  [Seal.] 

Isaac  Liohtner,       [Seal.] 
Sealed  and  delivered  in  the  presence  of — 
B.  F.  Kendall, 
R.  M.  Walker. 

Examined  and  approved  this  20th  day  of  January,  1862. 
(Signed)  C.  C.  Hewitt,  C.  J.  of  W.  T, 


820 


Territory  OP  Washington,  "I 
Office  Clerk  Supreme  Court,  J      ' 

I,  Richard  Lane,  clerk  of  the  supreme  court  of  Washington 
Territory,  do  hereby  certify  that  the  foregoing  is  a  full,  true, 
complete,  and  correct  copy  of  the  original  bond  filed  'n  my 
office  o'n  the  21st  day  of  January,  1862,  in  the  case  of  the 
Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company  versus  Pi  j.       .    .  v^". 
as  fully  as  the  same  remains  of  record  and  on  file  in  my  office. 
In  testimony  whereof  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and 
/         affixed  the  seal  of  the  supreme  court  of  Washington 
[seal]  Territory,  at  Olympia,  W.  T.,  on  this  29th  day  of  Au- 
gust, 1862. 

Richard  Lane, 
Clerk  Sup.  Court  Washington  Territory. 


■I  !|i 


William  F.  Tolmie,  agent  and  member  of  the  Puget's  Sound 
Agricultural  Company,  comes  now,  at  this  May  term,  A.  D. 
1859,  of  the  honorable  commissioners'  court  for  Pierce  county, 
Washington  Territory,  and  moves  the  court  to  correct  the 
assessment  roll,  by  striking  therefrom  so  much  as  is  assessed 
against  said  Company  for  the  year  1859  upon  lands  claimed 
in  Pierce  County  by  said  Company  under  the  treaty  of  1846 
with  Great  Britain,  and  assigns  for  grounds  the  following 
reasons : 

Ist.  The  treaty  of  1846,  upon  which  said  Company  base 
their  right  to  hold  lands  in  said  county,  does  not  confirm  to 
the  Company  lands,  but  contains  a  contract  that  the  lands  to 
them  belonging  shall  be  confirmed,  or  purchased  at  a  fair  val- 
uation, and  that  the  United  States  Government  has  not  by 
any  subsequent  act  confirmed  to  said  Company  the  said  lands. 

2d.  A  large  portion  of  the  land  claimed  by  said  Company 
in  said  county,  and  upon  which  said  assessment  is  made,  is 
now  occupied  by  citizens  of  the  United  Spates,  claiming  to 
hold  the  same  under  the  donation  law  *  that  said  citizens  hold 
the  said  land  adversely  to  and  against  the  interests  of  said 


■^ 


321 

Company;  and  that  said  Company  is  not  now  in  any  wise  bene- 
fitted by  the  said  land  so  held  by  said  citizens. 

3d.  The  levying  and  collection  of  said  tax  upon  said  lands 
is  in  direct  contravention  of  the  provisions  of  the  organic  act, 
in  this,  it  is  not  equal  and  uniform. 

(Signed)  Wm.  F.  Tolmie,  Agt,  ^c, 

By  Frank  Clauk,  AW y. 


Territory  op  Washington,  1     . 
County  of  Pierce,  j"  *  ' 

Personally  appeared  before  me,  the  undersigned,  Wm.  ¥• 
Tolmie,  who,  being  first  duly  sworn,  says  that  the  facts  set 
forth  in  the  foregoing  application  for  correcting  of  assessment 
roll  are  true,  to  the  best  of  his  knowledge  and  belief. 

(Signed)  Wm.  F.  Tolmie, 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to  before  me  this  5th  day  of  May, 
1859. 

(Signed)  Henry  E.  Bradley, 

Auditor  Pierce  County,  W.  T. 


I  hereby  certify  that  the  foregoing  is  a  full,  true,  and  cor- 
rect copy  of  the  original  on  file  in  this  ofiice. 

In  witness  whereof  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  affixed 
the  adopted  seal  of  the  honorable  board  of  county  commis- 
sioners' court  of  Pierce  county,  Washington  Territory,  this 
12th  day  of  September,  A.  D.  1856. 

(Signed)  Geo.  Gallagher, 

Auditor  Pierce  County. 


Estill  ited  average  of  land  under  fence  claimed  by  the  Pu- 
get's  Sound  Agricultural  Company  in  Pierce  county,  Wash- 
ington Territory  : 

At  Fort  Nisqually 160  acres. 

Muck 200 

Elk  Plain 150 


.«- 


'.,*»««»•  ■  mil  m»iiiii>ii  **"'  *"> 


P"Hi 


822 

Ashland 40  acres. 

Cowies 60 

Kulkuloh 20 

Treehatchi 20 

Sastuck 90 

740 


At  Tithlow,  (formerly  Mr.  Dean's  residence,)  improved  by 
the  Company,  but  from  whence  they  are  forcibly  debarred,  80. 
Unable  to  say,  Mrithout  reference  to  books,  vrhat  extent  of  en- 
closure there  was  at  certain  of  the  above-named  places  prior 
to  the  date  of  the  boundary  treaty  in  1846.  -    - 

(Signed)  W.  F.  Tolmib, 

Agent  Pwget's  Sound  Agricultural  Co. 


Steilacoom,  p.  C,  W.  T., 
County  Commissioners'  Court-House, 

Saturday,  Mai/  7,  1859. 
I  hereby  certify  that  the  foregoing  is  a  true,  full,  and  cor- 
rect copy  of  the  original  in  this  office. 

'    In  witness  whereof  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and 
[seal.]  the  adopted  seal  of  the  commissioners'  court  of  Pierce 
county,  this  12th  day  of  September,  A.  D.  1859. 
(Signed)  Geo.  Gallagher, 

Auditor  Pierce  County^  W.  T. 


William  F.  Tolmie,  agent  and  member  of  the  Puget's  Sound 
Agricultural  Company,  comes  now,  at  the  May  term,  A.  D« 
1859,  of  the  honorable  commissioners'  court  of  Pierce  county, 
Washington  Territory,  and  moves  the  court  to  correct  the 
assessment  roll,  by  striking  therefrom  so  much  as  is  assessed 
against  said  Company  for  the  year  1859  upon  lands  belonging 
to  said  Company,  and  assigns  for  grounds  the  following  rea- 
sons: 

The  levying  and  collection  of  said  tax  on  lambs  is  in  direct 


323 

contravention  of  the  provisions  of  the  organic  act,  in  this, 
that  it  is  not  equal  and  uniform,  the  young  of  no  other  do- 
mestic animal  save  the  sheep  being  in  this  county  subject 
to  taxation,  whilst  in  every  other  county  of  the  Territory  the 
young  of  all  descriptions  of  live  stock  are,  until  one  year  old, 
exempt  from  taxation. 

(Signed)  William  F.  Tolmie, 

Agent  and  Member  P.  S.  A.  Co. 
Steilacoom,  W.  T.,  May  22,  1859. 

,1  hereby  certify  that  the  foregoing  is  a  full,  true,  and  cor- 
rect copy  of  the  original  on  file  in  this  office. 

In  witness  whereof  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  affixed 
the   adopted   seal   of  the   commissioners'  court  of 
[seal.]    Pierce  county,  Washington  Territory,  this  12th  day 
of  September,  A.  D.  1859.  • 

(Signed)  Geo.  Gallagher, 

Auditor  Pierce  County,  W.  T. 

Motion  to  amend,  pending  motion  for  correction  of  assess- 
ment roll  so  far  as  relates  to  land  tax  of  Puget's  Sound  Ag- 
ricultural Company,  &c. 

Said  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company  moves  to  amend 
said  motion  by  adding  to  first  reason  assigned,  "  and  that  said 
Company  have  not  now  such  an  interest  in  said  land  as  ren- 
ders them  subject  to  taxation." 
Dated  Mat  23,  1859. 

(Signed)  Frank  Clark, 

Attorney  for  Puget's  Sound  Agricultufal  Co.,  ^c. 

I  hereby  certify  that  the  foregoing  is  a  full,  true,  and  cor- 
rect copy  of  the  original  motion  on  file  in  this  office. 

In  witness  whereof  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hund  and  affixed 
the   adopted  seal   of   the  commissioners'   court  of 
[seal.]    Pierce  county,  Washington  Territory,  this  12th  day 
of  September,  A.  D.1859. 
(Signed)  Geo.  Gallagher, 

Auditor,  Pierce  County,  W.  T. 


824 


COMMISSIONERS'  COURT,  MAY  TERM,  1859, 

Monday,  June  4. 

Present:  Messrs.  Chambers,  Murry,  and  Downey. 

Consideration  of  motion  to  correct  assessment  roll.  Doctor 
W.  F.  Tolmie,  agent  and  member,  &c.,  being  asked  what  quan- 
tity of  lands  were  surveyed  and  claimed  by  the  Puget's  Sound 
Agricultural  Company,  answered  that  the  Company  surveyed 
and  claimed  about  161,000  acres,  as  estimated  by  Surveyor 
General  Tilton  and  himself,  said  estimate  being  made  from  a 
plat  of  the  survey  on  file  in  the  Surveyor  General's  office. 

He  being  further  asked  the  value  of  said  lands,  for  answer 
said  he  refused  to  place  any  valuation  on  them  whatever,  and 
verbally  protested  against  the  assessing  and  taxing  said  lands. 

It  was  thereupon  ordered  by  the  court  that  the  lands  be 
valued  at  one  dollar  per  acre,  and  that  they  be  assessed  at  that 
rate. 

I  hereby  certify  that  the  foregoing  is  a  true,  full,  and  cor- 
rect copy  of  the  record. 

In  witness  whereof  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and 
[seal.]  the  adopted  seal  of  the  commissioners'  court,  this 
'   .  15th  day  of  September,  A.  D.  1859. 

(Signed)  Geo.  Gallagher, 

Auditor  of  Pierce  County,  W.  T. 


■;  I 


To  the  Honorable  the  Board  of  Commissioners  of  Pierce  County, 
Washington  Territory ; 
Gentlemen:  You  are  hereby  notified  that  the  Puget's  Sound 
Agricultural  Company  appeal  from  the  decision  rendered  by 
your  honorable  board  upon  the  motion  filed  May  5,  1859,  and 
amendment  thereto  filed  May  23,  1859,  for  the  correction  of 
assessment  roll  so  far  as  relates  to  tax  assessed  against  said 
Company  for  the  year  1859,  upon  lands  claimed  in  said  county 
of  Pierce  under  the  treaty  of  1846  with  Great  Britain  ;  and 
that  the  said  appeal  will  come  on  to  be  heard  at  the  next  Sep- 


le  4. 

Doctor 
t  quan- 
Sound 
rveyed 
irveyor 
from  a 

ice. 

anflvrer 
cr,  and 
1  lands, 
mds  be 
i  at  that 

nd  cor- 

md  and 
irt,  this 


If.  T. 


County^ 

's  Sound 
lered  by 
859,  and 
ection  of 
inst  said 
id  county 
ain ;  and 
lext  Sep- 


325 

tember  term  of  tho  district  court  in  and  for  said  county  of 
Pierce. 
Steilacoom,  June  9,  1859. 

(Signed)  Wm.  F.  Tolmie, 

Agent,  jf'c,  PugeVs  Sound  Agricultural  Co. 

I  hereby  certify  that  tho  foregoing  is  a  full,  true,  and  cor- 
rect copy  of  the  original  notice  on  file  in  this  office. 

In  witness  whereof  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  affixed 
the  adopted  seal  of  the  board  of  county  commission- 
[SEAL.]     ers  of  Pierce  county,  Washington  Territory,  this  12th 
day  of  September,  A.  D.  1859. 
(Signed)  Geo.  Gallaoiier, 

Auditor  Pierce  County,  W.  T. 


Know  all  men  by  these  presents  that  we,  William  F.  Tolmie, 
agent  and  member  of  tho  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Com- 
pany, as  principal,  and  Andrew  F.  Byrd  and  0.  P.  Meeker, 
as  sureties,  are  held  and  firmly  bound  unto  the  board  of  com- 
missioners of  the  county  of  Pierce,  Washington  Territory,  and 
to  their  successors  in  office,  for  and  in  behalf  of  said  county, 
in  the  sum  of  two  thousand  eight  hundred  and  seventeen  dol- 
lars and  fifty  cents,  lawful  money  of  the  United  States,  to  be 
paid  to  the  said  commissioners  or  to  their  successors  in  office, 
for  the  use  of  said  county  or  its  assigns,  for  which  payment, 
well  and  truly  to  be  made,  wo  jointly  and  severally  bind  our- 
selves, our  heirs,  executors,  and  administrators. 

Sealed  with  our  seals  and  dated  this  9th  day  of  June,  A.  D. 
1859. 

Whereas  the  condition  of  the  above  obligation  is  such,  that 
William  F.  Tolmie,  agent  and  member  of  the  Puget's  Sound 
Agricultural  Company,  has  appealed  to  the  next  September 
term  of  the  district  court  for  Pierce  county,  W.  T.,  from  the 
decision  rendered  by  the  board  of  commissioners  of  Pioi  ce 
county,  W.  T,,  upon  a  motion  filed  May  5, 1859,  and  ameiiu- 
ment  thereto  filed  May  22,  1859,  for  the  correction  of  assess- 
ment roll  so  far  as  relates  to  the  tax  assessed  against  said 


■*»■■■■»<»■»  <M»iW 


I  .(i 


826 

Company  for  tho  year  185i),  upon  land  claimod  in  said  county 
of  Pierce  under  tho  treaty  of  1840  with  Orcnt  Britain:  Now, 
thoreforo,  if  tho  said  William  F.  Tolinie,  agent  and  member 
as  aforesaid,  shall  pay,  or  causo  to  bo  paid,  all  costs  that  shall 
be  adjudged  against  said  appellant  on  said  appeal,  then  this 
obligation  shall  bo  void;  otherwise  to  remain  in  full  force  and 
virtue. 

William  F.  Tolmie,  A^/ent,  i^o.,  [seal.] 
Andrew  F.  Byrd,  [seal.] 

0.  P.  Meekeii,  [seal.] 

In  presence  of — 

Geo.  Gallaojier,  ^       *   / 

W.  H.  Wood. 

I  hereby  certify  that  tho  foregoing  is  a  full,  true,  and  cor- 
rect copy  of  tho  original  bond  on  file  in  this  office. 

In  witness  whereof  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  pnd  affixed 
the  adopted  seal  of  tho  honorable  board  of  commis- 
[seal.]     sioners'  court  of  Pierco  county,  Washington  Terri- 
tory, this  12th  day  of  September,  A.  D.  1859. 
(Signed)  Gko.  Oallagher, 

Auditor  Pierce  County,  W.  ' 


Motion  to  Dismim. 


DISTRICT  COURT  FOR  PIERCE  COUNTY,  WASIIINDTON  TERRITORY, 

MARCH  TERM,  18C0, 


Puget's  Sound  Ao'l  Co.,  appellants. 


v«. 


.} 


Commissioners  of  Pierce  Co.,  W.  T.,  respondents. 

Respondents,  by  counsel,  moved  the  court  to  dismiss  the 
appeal  in  the  abovo  case,  and  assign  for  cause  thereof — 

1st.  That  this  court  has  no  jurisdiction  of  the  case;  be- 
cause— 

1st.  The  parties  appellant  are  subjects  of  a  foreign  power 
and  not  citizens  of  the  United  States. 


2(1.  That  they  arc  non-rosidonts  of  the  United  States  and   ' 
this  Territory. 
8d.  They  are  a  foreign  association  or  joint-stock  company. 
(Signed)  Garfielde,  for  JtigponJeiitit. 

Motion  overruled.     Exception  taken  by  counsel,  and  excep- 
tion allowed. 

(Signed)  0.  B.  McFadden, 

C.  J.  and  J.  of  I*.  Cu.  Court. 
March  29,  1860. 


'ERRITORY, 


Appeal  from  the  Court  of  County  Commiaaioncra  for  the  County 

of  Pierce. 

IN  THE  DISTRICT  COURT  OF  TIERCE  COUNTY,  SErTEMBER  T.,  1859. 

Puqet's  Sound  Ag'l  Co. 

vtt. 
The  Coujjty  of  Pierce. 

It  is  admitted  upon  the  part  of  the  appellants  as  follows: 

1st.  That  the  appellants  have  claimed  to  be  the  owners  of 
the  lands  on  which  they  aro  required  to  pay  taxes  by  the  ap- 
pellee, and  that  they  have  had  the  same  surveyed  and  platted, 
and  the  plat  thereof  has  been  by  them  filed  in  the  office  of  the 
surveyor  general  for  the  Territory  of  Washington. 

2d.  That  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  in  survey- 
ing the  lands  adjacent  lo  the  said  claim  of  appellants,  has 
stopped  the  section  lines  at  the  boundaries  of  said  claim,  and 
has  not  included  the  same  in  the  public  survey. 

3d.  That  a  portion  of  the  land  included  within  the  boun- 
daries of  said  claim  has  been  occupied  as  a  military  station  by 
the  Government  of  the  United  States,  said  Government  paying 
rent  therefor  to  said  appellants. 

4th.  That  said  appellants  have  attempted  to  eject,  by  pro- 
cess of  law,  persons  occupying  a  portion  of  said  land,  and 
claiming  the  same  under  the  provisions  of  the  donation  law. 

It  is  admitted  by  the  appellee  as  follows : 

1st.  That  a  large  portion  of  the  lands,  for  which  said  Com- 


P""«i 


'  u 


328 

pany  arv*^  taxed,  are  unenclosed  lands,  and  a  portion  thereof 
is  occupiod  and  claimed  bj  citizens  of  the  United  States, 
claiming  the  same  adversely  to  the  appellants  and  under,  as 
they  allege,  the  provisions  of  the  donation  law. 

2d.  That  American  citizens  in  the  county  of  Pierce,  who 
have  li"ed  over  four  years  on  their  donation  claims,  have  not 
been  ta.:ed  for  the  same,  although  they  are  outside  of  the 
claim  of  the  appellants,  nor  is  there  any  tax  levied  on  any 
real  estate  in  said  county  other  than  the  lands  of  said  appel- 
lants. 

3d.  The  Government  of  the  United  States  has  not  desig- 
nated the  metes  and  bounds  of  the  claim  of  the  Puget's  Sound 
Agricultural  Company  Cac:  pt  by  recognizing  those  set  out  by 
the  Company  in  its  instructions  to  the  surveyor  general. 

ii\i.  That  the  land  occupied  by  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  as  a  military  station,  and  for  which  rent  was 
paid  to  said  appellants,  had  some  old  buildings  situated  there- 
on which  have  since  been  torn  ^*own,  the  said  Government 
still  occupying  said  land  and  paying  rent  therefor. 

(Signed)  Wallace  &  Chenoweth, 

AW  1/8  for  Appellants. 
(Signed)  Smith  &  Garfielde, 

'  Att'ysfor  Appellee. 


.?;-M 


Additional  Facts  agreed  upon  hy  Counsel  in  the  above  Cause,  to 
be  filed  and  used  upon  the  hearing. 

DISTRICT  COURT  OF  PIERCE  COUNTY,  WASIIiNOTON  TERRITORY, 

March  term,  iseo. 


Puget's  Sound  Ag'l  Co.,  appellants. 


vs. 


} 


Pierce  County,  respondent. 

Ist.  It  is  agreed  that  the  Puget  Sound  Agricultural  Com- 
pany was  organized  in  Great  Britain,  and  has  remained  and 
continued  a  foreign  association,  joint-stock  company,  or  cor- 
poration. 


^ 


lERRITORY, 


829 

2d.  That  the  members  of   said  company,  or  a  majority 
thereof,  were  and  still  continue  to  be  non-residents  of  the 
United  States  and  subjects  of  a  fcreii^u  government. 
(Signed)  S.  Garfifi^db, 

Att'y  for  llegpondent, 
(Signed)  W.  H.  Wallace, 

Att'y  for  Appellant. 


Appeal  from  the  Decree  of  Taxation  of  the  County  Oommmion' 
ersforthc  County  of  Pierce,  Washington  Territory. 

IN  THE  DISTRICT  COURT  FOR  PIERCE  COUNTY,  WASHINGTON  TER- 
RITORY, SEPTEMBER  TERM,  1859. 

Puget's  Sound  Aq'l  Co.,  appellants, 

vs. 

Pierce  County,  Wash.  Terr'y,  appellee. 

This  cause  came  on  to  be  heard  on  an  agreed  statement  of 
facts,  and  was  argued  by  counsel. 

On  consideration  whereof,  it  is  now  here  ordered  and  ad- 
judged bj''  this  court,  that  the  order  of  taxation  made  by  the 
county  commissioners  for  the  county  of  Pierce  on  the  lands 
claimed  by  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company  bo,  and 
the  same  is  hereby,  affirmed  with  costs. 

(Signed)  0.  B.  McFadden, 

C.  J.  and  Judge  of  the  Dist.  Court  for  the 
County  of  Pierce,  Washinyton  Territory. 

Puget's  Sound  Ag'l  Co.,  appellants,  ^       ' 

vs.  y 

Pierce  County,  W.  T.,  appellee.  J 
To  the  appellee  in  the  above-entitled  cause: 
You  are  hereby  notified  that  the  appellants  have  this  day 
filed  with  me  a  precipe,  directing  me  to  notify  you  that  they 
will  take  an  appeal  to  the  supreme  court  ui  Washington  Ter- 
ritory from  the  judgment  of  the  district  'Mirt  rendered  in  said 
cause,  the  said  cause  being  an  appeal  fiviVi  the  decree  of  tax- 
ation of  the  county  commissioners  for  the  county  of  Pierce, 
Washington  Territory. 


;  -v 


\  i; 


^-  Is 


RPPHHI 


330 

The  Supreme  Court  will  convene  on  the  first  Monday  in 
December  next. 

In  witness  whereof  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and 
r  n  affixed  the  seal  of  said  district  court  this  30th  day 
"■        *-'    of  November,  A.  D.  1859. 

(Signed)  Wm.  H.  Wood, 

Clerk  District  Cotirt  Pierce  Co.,  W.  T. 


Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Co.,  appellants. 


V8. 


] 


Pierce  County,  W.  T.,  appellee. 
The  Clerk  of  the  District  Court  of  Pierce  County,  W.  T. : 

You  are  hereby  directed  to  issue,  under  the  seal  of  said 
court,  notice  to  the  appellee  of  the  filing  of  this  precipe,  that 
the  appellants  will  take  an  appeal  to  the  supreme  court  of 
Washington  Territory  from  the  judgment  of  the  district  court 
rendered  in  said  cause,  the  said  cause  being  an  appeal  from 
the  decree  of  taxation  of  the  county  commissioners  for  the 
county  of  Pierce,  W.  T.  You  will  make  the  same  returnable 
to  the  supreme  court,  W.  T.,  on  the  first  day  of  the  next 
term  thereof,  which  will  be  the  first  Monday  of  December 
next. 

W.  H.  Wallace, 

Attorney  for  Appellant. 

November  29,  1859. 


DISTRICT  COURT  FOR  PIERCE  COUNTY,  ^".  T,,  MARCH  TERM,  1860. 
Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Co., 


vs. 


■} 


Pierce  County,  W.  T. 
This  cause  coming  on  to  bo  heard  upon  an  agreed  statement 
of  facts,  and  after  argument  of  counsel  and  due  deliberation 
it  is  considered  and  adjudged  by  the  c6urt  that  the  order  of 
taxation  made  by  the  county  commissionei's  of  Pierce  county 
on  the  lands  claimed  by  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Com- 


831 

pany  be,  and  the  same  is  hereby,  affirmed,  with  costs.  And 
it  further  appearing  to  the  court  that  important  questions  of 
law  are  involved  in  this  case,  it  is  ordered  that  this  judgment 
be  entered  in  form  only,  and  that  the  original  papers  in  this 
case  be  certified  to  the  supreme  court  at  its  next  December 
term. 

(Signed)  0.  B.  McFadden, 

C.  J.  and  J.  of  P.  Co.  Diat.  Court. 


88: 


Territory  of  Washington,  1 
County  of  Pierce,  y 

I,  William  H.  Wood,  clerk  of  the  district  court  of  the 
county  of  Pierce,  W,  T.,  do  hereby  certify  that  the  foregoing 
are  all  of  the  original  papers  on  file  tn  the  district  clerk's 
office  in  a  cause  wherein  Pierce  County,  W.  T.,  is  plaintiff, 
and  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company  is  defendant. 

In  witness  whereof  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and 
p         1     affixed  the  seal  of  the  district  court  aforesaid,  this 
first  day  of  December,  A.  D.  1860. 

(Signed)  Wm.  H.  Wood, 

'  Clerk  District  Court  Pierce  Co.,  W.  T. 


Territory  of  Washington,  1      , 
Office  Clerk  Sup.  Court,      j 

I,  Richard  Lane,  clerk  of  the  supreme  court  of  Washing- 
ton Territory,  do  hereby  certify  that  the  foregoing  arc  full, 
true,  correct,  and  complete  copies  of  the  original  papers  cer- 
tified to  the  supreme  court  of  Washington  Territory  at  its 
December  term,  1860,  in  the  case  of  Puget's  Sound  Agricul- 
tural Company,  appellants,  versus  Pierce  County,  W.  T.,  re- 
spondents, as  fully  as  the  same  remain  on  file  in  my  office. 

In  testimony  whereof  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand 
[seal.]     and  affixed  the  seal  of  said  supreme  court,  at  Olym- 
pia,  W.  T.,  this  29th  day  of  August,  A.  D.  1862. 

Richard  Lane, 
Clerk  Su^).  Court  of  Wash.  Terr'y. 
23  B  . 


m^'i 


882 

Bo  it  remembered,  that  at  a  term  of  the  sapreme  coart  of 
the  Territory  of  Washington,  begun  and  held  at  Olympia,  the 
seat  of  government  of  said  Territory,  on  the  3d  day  of  De- 
cember, 1860,  it  being  the  first  Monday  of  said  month,  and 
the  day  appointed  by  law  for  a  session  of  said  court,  the  fol- 
lowing, amongst  other  business,  was  had  and  transacted,  to 
wit: 

Appeal  from  District  Court  of  Pierce  County,  W.  T. 

Tuesday,  December  11,  1860,  8th  judicial  day. 
Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company  "| 

Pierce  County,  W.  T.  j 

Comes  now  B.  F.  Kendall,  Esquire,  counsel  for  plaintiff, 
and  makes  and  files  a  motion  in  words  following  : 

"Plaintiff  comes  now  and  asks  that  the  couniy  of  Pierce  be 
enjoined  or  restrained  from  levying  or  collecting  any  taxes 
upon  the  real  property,  the  taxes  upon  which  are  in  contest 
in  this  suit,  until  the  cause  is  decided. 

(Signed)      "Kendall  &  Wallace,  pro  Plaintiffs." 

"Wednesday,  December  19,  1860,  15th  day. 
Puget's  Sound  Ag'l  Company,  appellants, 

V8. 

Pierce  County,  W.  T.,  appellee. 

The  argument  of  this  case  continued  until  next  term,  and 
the  court  order  and  direct  that  the  appellee  in  this  case  be 
restrained  from  the  collection  of  the  taxes  assessed  against 
the  lands  claimed  by  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Comoany 
until  further  order  of  this  court,  on  condition  that  the  appel- 
lants execute  a  bond  to  the  appellee  in  the  penal  sum  of  thr  c 
thousiind  dollars,  with  one  or  more  sureties,  to  be  approved  by 
the  clerk  of  this  court,  conditioned  for  the  payment  of  the 
taxes  which  may  be  found  due  and  owing  by  them  to  Pierce 
county  on  the  final  determination  of  this  cause.  Bond  to  be 
filed  within  twenty  daye. 

Be  it  remembered  that  we,  Edward  Iluggins,  Giles  Ford, 
and  Henry  G.  Williamson,  are  held  and  firmly  bound  unto  the 


888 


irtof 
a,  the 
f  De- 
1,  and 
le  foi- 
led, to 


T. 

day. 

Aaintiff, 

'ierce  be 
[ly  taxes 
I  contest 

fch  day. 


;crm,  and 
lis  case  be 
Id  against 
Comoany 
;lie  appel- 
of  thr  c 
[proved  by 
lent  of  the 
to  Pierce 
;ond  to  be 

liles  Ford, 
id  unto  the 


county  of  Pierce  in  the  full  sum  of  three  thousand  dollars,  the 
payment  of  which,  well  and  truly  to  be  made,  we  bind  our 
selves,  our  heirs,  and  executors. 

Witness  our  hands  and  seals  this  2l8t  day  of  December,  1860. 

The  condition  of  the  above  obligation  is  such,  that  whereas 
the  county  of  Pierce  has  levied  a  tax  against  the  Puget's 
Sound  Agricultural  Company  on  land  in  Pierce  county,  the 
same  on  which  the  tax  for  1859  is  in  contest  before  the  supreme 
court,  and  said  Company  ask  that  said  county  shall  be  enjoined 
from  collecting  said  tax  for  1860  or  any  more  taxes  until  the 
question  now  pending  in  said  court  is  decided :  Now,  there- 
fore, if  the  said  Company  shall  well  and  truly  pay  said  taxes 
and  interest  thereon,  if  the  same  shall  be  adjudged  legal  by 
the  said  supreme  court,  then  this  obligation  shall  be  null 'and 
void ;  otherwise  to  remain  in  full  force  and  effect. 

(Signed)  Edward  Iluao INS,    [Seal.] 

Giles  Ford,  "   [Seal.] 

H.  G.  Williamson,  [Seal.] 

Endorsed:  Approved  and  filed  December  24,  1860. 

Richard  IjAnk, 
Clerk  Sup.  Court  for  Washington  County. 

Be  it  remembered  that,  at  a  term  of  the  supreme  court  of 
the  Territory  of  Washington,  begun  and  held  at  Olympia,  the 
seat  of  governtaent  of  said  Territory,  on  the  2d  day  of  Decem- 
ber, 1861,  it  being  the  first  Monday  of  said  month,  and  the 
day  appointed  by  law  for  a  session  of  said  supreme  court,  the 
following,  amongst  other  business,  was  had  and  transacted, 
to  wit: 

Saturday,  January  18,  1862. 
Puqet's  Sound  Agricultural  Company,  Appellants, 


vs. 


t8,| 
8.    j 


Pierce  County,  Washington  Territory,  Appellee. 
(Contin^iod  from  last  term.) 

This  day  came  the  parties,  by  their  attorneys,  and  there- 
upon, the  court  having  hoard  the  same  and  argument  of  coun- 


^w 


■■■■■ 


884 

sel,  aa  well  upon  the  statement  of  facts  agreed  upon,  the 
original  files  and  pleadings,  and  the  transcript  of  the  proceed- 
ings between  the  parties  in  the  district  court  of  Pierce  county, 
as  also  upon  all  matters  pertaining  thereto,  and  tho  same  being 
Been,  and  by  the  court  now  here  fully  considered,  and  mature 
deliberation  being  thereupon  had,  it  is  therefore  considered 
by  the  court  that  the  pro  forma  judgment  in  the  court  below 
be  made  absolute,  and  that  it  stand  the  judgment  of  this  court, 
in  full  force  and  effect,  and  that  any  restraining  order  or  orders 
heretofore  issued  be  removed ;  that  appellants  be  adjudged  to 
pay  the  costs,  taxed  as  follows,  that  is  to  say,  costs  in  the  dis- 
trict court  of  Pierce  county,  thirty-seven  and  90-100  dollars ; 
costs  in  the  supreme  court  of  Washington  Territory,  December 
term,  1860,  nineteen  and  10-100  dollars ;  and  costs  in  supreme 
court  of  Washington  Territory,  December  term,  1861,  twenty 
and  10-100  dollars,  and  that  execution  issue  therefor. 


■     1 


f^sl 


Territory  of  Washington,  1 
Office  Cleric  Supreme  Court,  J 

I,  Richard  Lane,  clerk  of  the  supreme  court  of  Washington 
Territory,  do  hereby  certify  that  the  foregoing  is  a  true,  full, 
and  complete  copy  of  the  record  of  said  supreme  court  in  the 
case  of  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company,  Appellants, 
v%.  Pierce  County,  Washington  'Territory,  December  term, 
1860,  and  December  term,  1861,  as  fully  and  amply  as  tho 
same  remains  of  record  in  my  office. 

In  testimony  whereof  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and 
affixed  the  seal  of  said  supreme  court,  at  Olympia, 
[seal.]  Washington  Territory,  this  29th  day  of  August,  A.  D. 
1862. 

Richard  Lane, 
Clerk  Sup.  Court  of  Wash.  Terr'y. 
Filed  February  13,  1864. 


CASE  OF  THE  HUDSON'S  BAT  COMPANY. 


c— 1. 

To  his  Excellency 

The  Governor  General  op  Canada  in  Council: 

■   Qdebec,  2Gth  January,  1865. 

My  Lord:  I  have  the  honor  to  report  that  while  recently  in 
England,  in  compliance  with  your  Excellency's  instructions, 
I  placed  myself  in  communication  with  her  Majesty's  Secretary 
of  State  for  the  Colonies  on  the  subject  of  opening  up  to  settle- 
ment the  northwestern  territories. 

In  your  Excellency's  dispatch  of  19th  January,  1864,  to  the 
Colonial  Secretary,  the  anxious  desire  of  the  Canadian  Gov- 
ernment was  communicated  "for  some  speedy, inexpensive,  and 
mutually  satisfactory  plan"  for  "settling  definitely  the  north- 
western boundary  of  Canada,"  and  the  claim  of  Canada  ^as 
asserted  to  "all  that  portion  of  central  British  America  which 
can  be  shown  to  have  been  in  the  possession  of  the  French  at 
the  period  of  the  cession  in  1763." 

In  reply  to  this  dispatch,  Mr.  Cardwell,  on  1st  July,  1864, 
requested  to  be  informed  whether  the  Government  of  Canada 
was  prepared  to  assist  in  negotiations  with  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company,  with  the  view  of  accepting  any  portion  of  the  terri- 
tory now  claimed  by  that  Company,  and  providing  the  means 
of  local  administration  therein ;  and  he  suggested  that,  if  so 
prepared,  it  would  be  desirable  that  some  person  duly  author- 
ized to  communicate  the  views  of  the  Canadian  Government 
should  be  sent  to  England  for  that  purpose. 

On  the  11th  November,  1864,  a  minute  of  Council  was  ap- 
proved by  your  Excellency,  in  reply  to  Mr.  Cardwell's  dispatch. 
It  set  forth  that  the  Government  of  Canada  was  ready  and 
anxious  to  co-operate  with  the  iv  j^erial  Government  in  securing 


886 


the  early  settlement  of  the  northivest  territories  and  the  esiab- 
lishment  of  local  government  in  its  settled  portions ;  but  that, 
in  its  opinion,  the  first  step  towards  that  end  was  the  extinction 
of  all  claim  by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  to  proprietary  rights 
in  the  <^oil  or  exclusive  rights  of  trade.  It  suggested  that  it 
was  for  the  Imperial  Government,  and  not  for  the  Government 
of  Canada,  to  assume  the  duty  of  bringing  to  an  end  a  mo- 
nopoly originating  in  an  £|nglish  charter  and  exercised  so  long 
under  imperial  sanction;  but  that  when  the  negotiations  were 
brought  to  a  close,  the  Government  of  Canada  would  be  ready 
to  arrange  with  the  Imperial  Government  for  the  annexation 
to  Canada  of  such  portions  of  the  territory  as  might  be  avail- 
able for  settlement,  as  well  as  for  the  opening  up  of  communi- 
cations into  the  territory  and  providing  means  of  local  admin- 
istration; or,  should  the  Imperial  Government  prefer  to  erect 
the  territory  into  a  Crown  colony,  the  Canadian  Government 
would  gladly  co-operate  in  the  opening  up  of  communication 
into  the  territory  and  the  settlement  of  the  country.  The 
minute  finally  suggested  that  the  undersigned,  while  in  Eng- 
land, would  communicate  more  fully  to  Mr.  Cardwell  the  views 
of  the  Canadian  Government. 

While  in  London  I  had  the  honor  of  several. interviews  with 
Mr. 'Cardwell,  at  which  the  whole  question  was  fully  discussed, 
and  I  gratefully  acknowledge  the  courtesy  and  attention  ex- 
tended to  me  by  that  gentleman. 

I  found  that  negotiations  for  the  cession  to  the  Crown  of  the 
territorial  claims  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  had  been 
proceeding  for  a  year  past  between  the  Colonial  Minister  and 
the  Company,  and  it  may  not  be  without  advantage  that  I 
should  state  here  briefly  the  point  to  which  these  negotiations 
had  been  brought. 

1.  In  July,  1863,  the  whole  interests  of  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company  were  transferred  to  Mr.  Edward  W.  Watkin  and 
certain  gentlemen  acting  with  him,  and  Sir  Edmund  Head  was 
elected  governor  of  the  Company.  The  capital  stock  of  the 
old  Company  was  ^1500,000  sterling,  but  at  the  time  of  the 
sale,  and  for  some  time  previous,  each  £100  share  was  worth 
JS200  on  the  London  Stock  Exchange.    The  market  value  of 


837 

the  Company's  interest  was,  therefore,  £1,000,000  sterling. 
The  new  Company  agreed  to  pay  .£1,500,000,  and  did  pay  that 
sum  for  the  transference  to  them  of  all  the  interest  of  the  old 
Company. 

2.  On  the  28th  of  August,  1863,  Sir  Edmund  Head,  as  gov- 
ernor of  the  new  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  communicated  to 
his  Grace  the  Duke  of  Newcastle  a  resolution  expressive  of 
the  conviction  that  the  time  had  arrived  for  introducing  into 
the  northwest  territories  the  direct  authority  of  the  Crown. 

3.  On  the  9th  of  October,  1863,  Sir  Frederick  Rogers,  by 
instruction  of  the  Duke  of  Newcastle,  informed  the  Company 
that  his  Grace  was  ready  to  consider  any  proposals  submitted 
to  him  by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  with  reference  to  the 
introduction  of  the  direct  authority  of  her  Majesty's  Govern* 
ment  in  Rupert's  Land. 

4.  On  11th  November,  1863,  Sir  Edmund  Head  acknowledged 
the  receipt  of  Sir  Frederick  Rogers's  communication,  and  pro- 
ceeded to  explain  the  views  of  the  Company  in  the  following 
terms: 

"With  regard  to  the  extent  of  the  proposed  colony,  of 
which  the  seat  of  government  would  be  Red  River,  (or  Fort 
Garry,)  the  committee  presume  that  his  Grace  would  wish  it 
to  include  the  whole  country  from  the  frontier  of  the  United 
States  to  the  north  branch  of  the  Saskatchewan,  and  to  extend 
eastward  towards  Lake  Superior  as  far  as  the  frontier  of 
Canada,  wherever  the  precise  line  of  that  frontier  may  be 
found.  Perhaps  the  most  convenient  limit  for  the  northern 
boundary  would  be  either  the  Saskatchewan  itself  or  a  line 
running  from  the  Rocky  Mountains  eastward  through  Edmon- 
ton House  and  Fort  Cumberland,  and,  from  the  lattor,  follow- 
ing the  Saskatchewan  down  to  Lake  Winnipeg.  Nothing 
would  be  gained  by  going  farther  to  the  northward,  nor  by  in- 
cluding the  eastern  side  of  Lake  Winnipeg;  but  from  the 
mouth  of  the  Winnipeg  river,  where  it  enters  the  lake,  the 
line  of  demarcation  might  be  run  eastward,  until  it  cuts  the 
Canadian  frontier  somewhere  north  of  Lake  Superior  or  Lake 
Huron." 

After  hinting  at  the  purchase  by  Government  of  the  whole 


•1 


■^■^ 


mmm 


8?<* 

territorial  olaim»of  the  Gompanj,  for  a  sam  of  money,  pay- 
able down  or  by  instalments,  bat  which  he  admits  is  probably 
an  impracticable  solution.  Sir  Edmund  Head  goes  on  to  pro- 
pose as  the  condition  of  the  Company's  consent  to  the  erection 
of  a  Grown  colony,  that  "the  Company  should  retain  the 
ownership  in  fee  simple  of  one-half  of  the  lands  in  the  colony, 
and  the  other  half  should  be  conveyed  by  the  Company  to  the 
Crown."  And  this  compromise,  he  explains,  the  Company 
suggests  only  subject  to  the  following  stipulations: 

"1.  The  Hudson's  Bay  Company  should  have  the  sole  right 
to  erect,  and  should  bind  themselves  to  complete  within  five 
years,  an  electric  telegraph  to  connect  British  Columbia  and 
Canada.  The  line  for  this  telegraph  should  be  approved  by 
the  Secretary  of  State,  and  it  should  be  maintained  by  the 
Company,  who  would,  of  course,  engage  to  convey  the  mes- 
sages of  the  imperial  and  colonial  governments  at  a  fixed  and 
moderate  rate. 

'*It  would  be  necessary,  as  a  condition  precedent  to  the 
erection  of  the  telegraph —  \ 

"(a.)  That  the  Governments  of  British  Columbia  and  Can- 
ada should  pledge  their  faith  respectively  to  the  Secretary  of 
State  to  pay  the  yearly  sum  set  forth  in  the  enclosures  to  the 
de'spatch  of  July  31,  1862,  with  all  advantages  as  to  lands  to 
be  granted  by  her  Majesty's  Government,  and  other  terms 
therein  specified. 

"{b.)  That  a  road  should  be  laid  out  along  the  line  of  tele- 
graph, but  the  soil  upon  which  the  telegraph  stands,  and  the 
space,  (say)  one  mile  in  width  on  one  side  of  its  course,  should 
belong  to  the  Hudson's  Bay  Ccmpany,  to  be  reckoned  as  part 
of  the  half  of  the  land  which  :hey  would  retain.  The  other 
side  of  the  road  might  be  included  in  the  half  belonging  to 
the  Crown. 

"{c.)  That  the  Company,  in  constructing  the  telegraph, 
should  be  entitled  to  use  wood  or  other  materials  taken  from 
ungranted  land. 

"2.  The  Crown  shall  resume  the  grant  of  mines  and  dig- 
gings of  gold  and  silver  throughout  the  colony,  on  condition 
of  paying  to  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  one-third  of  the 


».-i-.i^' .;tA.-ifii.i-.>J,  v-jr 


889 

receipts  of  all  dues,  royalties,  rents,  &c.,  from  such  mines  or 
^'ggi"g8,  whether  raised  by  way  of  export  duty  or  otherwise, 
but  the  Company  should  not  be  liable  for  expenses  of  collec- 
tion or  escort. 

"8.  Tho  buildings  required  for  military  or  Government 
purposes  at  Fort  Garry  or  Red  River  should  be  valued  and 
purchased  of  the  Company. 

"4.  The  Company  should  retain,  as  a  portion  of  their  half 
of  the  lands,  all  lots  already  laid  out  and  surveyed,  as  well  as 
five  thousand  acres  round  each  of  their  forts  or  posts." 

V.  On  the  11th  March,  1864,  Mr.  Chichester  Fortoscue, 
Under  Secretary  of  State  for  the  Colonies,  by  direction  of  the 
Duke  of  Newcastle,  rejected  the  proposals  of  the  Company. 
In  the  course  of  his  communication  the  following  passages 
occur : 

"In  an  unsettled  colony  there  is  no  effectual  mode  of  taxa- 
tion for  purposes  of  government  and  improvement,  and  the 
whole  progress  of  the  colony  depends  on  the  liberal  and  pru- 
dent disposal  of  its  land.  These  considerations  afford  decisive 
reasons  against  leaving  that  land  in  the  possession  of  a  corpo- 
ration. And  I  am  to  observe  that  these  objections,  conclusive 
in  any  case,  are  greatly  enhanced  in  the  case  of  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company,  as  I  learn  from  your  letter  that  it  has  been 
'the  unvarying  opinion'  of  the  committee  on  whose  behalf  you 
speak,  that  the  Company  would  *  lose  fully  as  much  as  they 
would  gaiii  by  the  increase  of  settlement  in  the  chartered  ter- 
ritory.' It  is,  therefore,  (to  say  the  least)  a  question  whether 
the  Company  would  not  be  under  a  direct  inducement  to  use 
their  proprietary  rights  to  thwart  the  colonizing  efforts  of  the 
Government.  *****  fphg  conclusive 
objection  to  the  scheme  is  that  it  would  reproduce,  in  a  gigantic 
shape,  the  inconveniences  which,  on  a  far  smaller  scale,  were 
found  intolerable  in  Canada.  It  is  evident  as  matter  of  rea- 
soning, and  notorious  as  a  matter  of  fact,  that  the  interposition 
of  large  blocks  of  property  ■  between  tracts  or  districts  of 
Crown  land  must  obstruct  the  opening  up  of  those  districts, 
unless  it  fortunately  happens  that  the  private  proprietor  is 
ready  to  expend  money  pari  passu  with  the  Government,  in 


,,tr*«»-*%j,, 


^., 


840 


the  construction  of  roads  and  other  improvemente,  and  to  con> 
form  his  land  policy  to  that  of  the  authorities.  It  is  also  clear 
that  colonists  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  race  look  upon  the  land 
revenue  as  legitimately  belonging  to  the  community,  and  that 
the  diversion  of  half,  or  more  than  half,  of  that  revenue  to  the 
purpose  of  increasing  the  dividends  of  a  private  corporation 
would  cause  a  continual  and  growing  discontent  which  could 
not  be  allayed  by  any  abstract  argument  of  right,  and  the  full 
force  of  which  the  Government  would  be  expected  by  the 
Company  to  sustain.  His  Grace  cannot  consent  to  make  him- 
self responsible  for  these  consequences,  and  he  is  therefore 
obliged  to  treat  as  inadmissible  any  proposal  for  the  proprie- 
tary partition  of  those  territories  which  may  be  placed  under 
the  Government  of  the  Grown. 

Mr.  Fortescne  then  proceeds  to  state,  "The  only  terms, 
which,  after  very  grave  consideration,  his  Grace  feels  himself 
able  to  propose  for  the  acceptance  of  the  Company,"  as  fol- 
lows: 

**1.  That  within  certain  geographical  limits,  (coinciding 
more  or  less  with  those  laid  down  in  your  letter.)  the  terri- 
torial rights  of  the  Company  should  bo  surrendered  to  the 
Crown. 

''2.  That  the  sum  of  one  shilling  per  acre  on  every  acre  sold 
by  the  Government  should  be  paid  to  the  Company,  and  pay- 
ment to  cease  when  their  aggregate  receipts  from  this  source 
should  exceed  .£150,000,  or  on  the  expiration  of  50  years. 

"8.  That  one-fourth  of  the  sum  received  by  the  Government 
as  an  export  duty  for  gold,  or  on  leases  of  gold  mines,  or 
licenses  for  gold  mining,  shall  be  payable  to  the  Company  for 
50  years,  or  until  the  aggregate  receipts  shall  amount  to 
£100,000. 

<<4.  That  on  these  conditions  a  Government  be  established 
in  the  ceded  territories.  Great  Britain  undertaking  the  expense 
and  risk  of  that  Government  until  the  colony  is  able  to  sup- 
port it,  as  in  British  Columbia  and  other  colonies. 

"It  must  be  clearly  understood,  that  the  payments  contem- 
plated in  the  second  and  third  of  these  articles  are  entirely 
dependent  on  the  Government  receipts,  and  that  the  Govern- 


^m 


to  con* 
10  clear 
ko  land 
nd  that 
e  to  tho 
toration 
b  could 
the  full 
by  the 
ttke  him- 
herefore 
proprie- 
}d  under 

y  terms, 
8  himself 
,"  as  fol- 

oinciding 
the  terri- 
ad  to  the 

acre  sold 
and  pay- 
his  source 
years. 
>vernment 
mines,  or 
npany  for 
imount  to 

latablished 
le  expense 
)le  to  sup- 

ts  contem- 
re  entirely 
le  Govern- 


841 

ment  will  not  be  pledged  to  any  particular  form  of  levying  a 
tax  upon  gold." 

Appended  to  lur.  Fortescue's  letter  was  the  following  post- 
script : 

"P.  S. — Since  the  above  letter  was  drafted,  his  Grace  has 
received  from  the  Governor  General  of  Canada  a  dispatch, 
from  which  it  appears  that  the  Canadian  Government  contem- 
plate the  assertion  of  a  claim  to  all  that  portion  of  Central 
America  which  can  be  shown  to  havu  ueen  in  possession  of  the 
French  in  1763.  It  must  of  course  be  understood  that  the 
above  suggestions  are  made  on  the  supposition  that  the  cession 
by  the  Company  will  place  her  Majesty's  Government  in  pos- 
session of  an  indisputable  title  to  the  territory  ceded  by  them." 

VI.  On  the  14th  March,  1864,  Sir  Edmund  Head  replied 
to  Mr.  Fortescue's  letter  of  the  11th  March,  taking  strong 
exception  to  the  postscript  of  that  letter.  Among  other  pass- 
ages was  the  following: 

"We  believe  the  title  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  to  be 
good,  and  we  are  prepared  to  defend  it  in  any  court  in  which 
it  may  be  impugned;  but  we  are  not  prepared  to  originate  any 
inquiry  of  the  kind,  or  to  undertake  to  give  any  guarantee,  or 
to  present  to  the  Secretary  of  State  any  title  other  than  that 
which  I  have  already  said  is  as  well  known  to  his  Grace  as 
jurselves.  Such  as  it  is,  it  must  be  taken  for  better  for  worse, 
for  we  have  no  other  to  offer,  and  we  believe  that  to  be  suffi- 
cient. If,  therefore,  any  such  guarantee  or  undertaking  is  a 
condition  precedent  to  the  completion  of  an  arrangement  on 
the  basis  now  suggested  in  your  letter  of  the  11th  instant,  it 
will,  we  fear,  be  wholly  useless  for  us  to  enter  into  the  con- 
sideration of  the  principle  of  that  offer,  or  any  discussion  how 
far  the  details  involved  in  it  are  or  are  not  acceptable  to  the 
Company,  or  how  far  the  amount  of  compensation  would  be 
sufficient.  If,  indeed,  the  question  were  only  one  of  some  few 
miles,  more  or  less,  of  boundary,  the  case  would  be  wholly  dif- 
ferent. But  in  the  form  in  whiqh  the  claim  is  presented  to  us 
in  your  postscript,  it  appears  to  the  committee  to  make  all 
further  action  impracticable." 


1 


^ 


342 


!    f: 


Sir  Edmund  Head  goes  on  to  say: 

"But  for  this  preliminary  diflBculty,  arising  from  the  post- 
script to  your  letter,  it  would  now  be  my  duty  to  call  your 
attention  to  the  fact  that  that  letter  makes  no  allusion  to  a 
substantive  portion  of  our  oSTer  to  which  we  attach  great  im- 
portance, that,  namely,  of  erecting  on  certain  terms  an  electric 
telegraph  across  the  uudson's  Bay  territory.  We  have  ceded 
to  no  one  the  rigb'>  to  do  this,  and  we  are  perfectly  ready,  on 
fair  conditions,  and  as  a  part  of  the  arrangement,  to  under- 
take to  do  it  ourselves.  Nor  is  anything  said  in  'the  counter- 
proposal made  by  you  as  to  the  portions  of  land  which  the 
Company  might  be  allowed  to  retain  as  private  property,  nor 
as  to  the  manner  in  which  their  buildings  and  improvements 
would  be  dealt  with."  ' 

VII.  On  the  5th  April,  1864,  Sir  Frederick  Rogers  addressed 
Sir  Edmund  Head  in  rejoinder  to  his  letter  of  the  14th  March. 
In  reference  to  the  Company's  objection  to  the  postscript  of 
Mr.  Fovtescue's  letter,  he  said: 

"  It  appears  to  the  Duke  of  Newcastle  that  the  committee 
has  somewhat  misapprehended  the  intention  with  which  that 
postscript  was  vitten.  It  is  assumed  for  the  present  purpose 
that  the  grant  to  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  is  a  valid  grant. 
But  it  is  contended  on  the  part  of  Canada  that  whether  valid 
or  not,  an  instrument  which  only  granted  to  the  Company  land 
not  in  possession  of  a  foreign  power  in  the  year  1670,  could 
not  from  its  very  terms  comprehend  in  1763  a  territory  which 
then  belonged  to  the  French,  and  which  it  is  contended  must 
therefore  have  then  belonged  and  belong  now  to  Canada.  It 
is,  therefore,  impossible  for  his  Grace  to  make  any  pledge  of 
thiS  kind,  except  as  to  land  which  is  beyond  the  scope  of  the 
Canadian  claim." 

Sir  Frederick  Rogers,  however,  then  went  on  to  modify 
somewhat  this  position.     He  said: 

"As  regards  the  territories  west  of  the  Mississippi,  to  which 
the  present  negotiation  in  the  maiu  relates,  the  Duke  of  New- 
castle, aft'jr  a  careful  examination,  is  prepared,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  the  present  negotiation,  to  assume  that  the  Canadian 
claim  is  groundless.     And  he  therefore  authorizes  me  to  renew 


!f  I 


'•  '    .   ii»».,    :i.k+,.-.    ^t,  ,*-»-«.  ^v.-<*'-^.*.'.'.».«*»^- •■' *•'■•''■■ 


..^..'r^  Vjli^ii  .^UtiiiLl^i. 


343 


the  post- 
call  your 
ision  to  a 
great  im- 
,n  electric 
lave  ceded 
ready,  on 
to  under- 
e  counter- 
which  the 
perty,  nor 
rovements 

i  addressed 
1th  March, 
stscript  of 

committee 
which  that 
jnt  purpose 
^alid  grant, 
lether  valid 
mpany  land 
1670,  could 
itory  which 
ended  must 

anada.  It 
y  pledge  of 
icope  of  the 

to  modify 

)pi,  to  which 
uke  of  New- 
"or  the  pur- 
he  Canadian 
me  to  renew 


the  proposals  contained  in  the  body  of  my  letter  of  tlic  lltli, 
subject  to  the  following  stipulation:  that  in  case  it  should  be 
found  advisable  to  cede  or  annex  to  Canada  any  territory 
lying  eastward  of  a  line  parsing  through  Lake  Winnipeg,  and 
from  thence  to  and  through  the  Lake  of  the  Woods,  her  Maj- 
esty's Government  should  be  at  liberty  to  exempt  the  annexed 
territory  from  all  payments  to  the  Hudson's  Bay  Ccjiipany, 
which  payments  would  thenceforth  be  ^clusively  leviable 
(without  any  dedu'-uon  from  their  amount)  on  the  territories 
acquired  by  the  Crown  to  the  west  of  the  above  line  of  demar- 
cation." 

In  regard  to  the  second  part  of  Sir  Edmund  Ilead'H  letter 
of  14th  March,  Sir  Frederick  Rogers  explained  that  the  Duke 
of  Newcastle  was  quite  willing  to  recognize  the  transference 
to  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  of  the  rights  and  responsibili- 
ties of  ;he  Atlantic  and  Pacific  Telegraph  and  Transit  Com- 
pany, ''if  it  is  recognized  by  the  Colonies  concerned."  And  he 
goes  on  to  say  that  his  Grace  "is  further  willing  that,  on  t'»c 
completion  of  the  road  and  telegraph  from  the  frontier  of 
Canada  to  that  of  British  Columbia,  lands  adjacent  to  the 
line  shall  be  granted  to  the  Company  at  the  rate  of  one  square 
mile  for  every  lineal  mile  of  road  and  telegraph  constructed 
on  Crown  lands  between  the  line  of  demarcation  above  de- 
scribed and  the  frontier  of  British  Columbia. 

VIII.  On  the  13th  April  the  Company  accepted  the  olTer  of 
Government  in  principle,  but  considoiod  that  the  mnoimt  of 
the  payments  within  fifty  years  out  of  the  land  and  gold  rev- 
enues should  not  be  limited,  or,  if  limited,  shouhl  be  limited 
to  ^£1,000,000  instead  of  ^£250,000.  They  asked  in  addition 
to  be  allowed — 

(1.)  To  retain  as  private  property  "their  posts  and  Htations" 
(on  which  buildings  had  been  erected)  "outside  tlio  lied  lliver 
settlement,  with  an  area  of  0,000  acres  round  each  such  post." 

(2.)  To  retain  "all  lots  set  out  and  occupied  by  them." 

(3.)  To  receive  for  every  50,000  acres  of  land  sold  by  the 
Crown  "a  grant  of  5,000  acres  of  wild  land"  of  their  own 
choice. 


U. 


m 


%  . 


344 

« 

They  also  require  exemption  from  exceptional  taxation  and 
relief  from  every  expense  of  government. 

As  the  basis  of  an  arrangement  for  "through  communica- 
tion," they  expressed  their  readiness  to  adopt  Mr.  Watkin's 
plan,  (modified,  as  it  necessarily  would  be,  by  amalgamation 
of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  and  the  Transit  and  Telegraph 
Company;)  but  they  required  five  square  miles  of  land  per 
lineal  mile  of  toleg(|aph  and  road,  instead  of  one  square  mile, 
as  oflfered  Governniont. 

IX.  On  the  Gth  of  June  Mr.  Cardwell  declined  to  accept 
these  proposals  without  considerable  n  odifications,  but  deferred 
any  counter  proposal  until  after  consultation  with  the  Trea- 
sury and  with  the  Canadian  Government. 

This  was  the  position  of  the  negotiation  when  the  under- 
signed reached  London  early  in  December,  18G4,  and  when 
Mr.  Cardwell  placed  in  his  hands  the  papers,  of  which  a  sum- 
mary has  been  given. 

Mr.  Cardwell,  in  explaining  verbally  the  state  of  the  nego- 
tiations, added,  that  in  case  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company's 
offer  of  13th  April,  1864,  was  accepted  by  the  Government  of 
Canada,  as  containing  in  principle  a  basis  on  which  negotia- 
'tions  might  bo  continued  with  the  hope  of  a  satisfactory  solu- 
tion, he  was  of  opinion  that  considerable  modification  of  the 
terms  might  be  obtained. 

That  there  might  be  no  misunderstanding  as  to  the  offer  of 
the  <!)ompany,  I  requested  that  a  map  might  be  obtained  from 
Sir  Edmund  Head  so  colored  as  to  show  clearly  the  territory 
now  claimed  by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  as  their  property, 
and  also  a  second  map  so  colored  as  to  show  what  portion  of  the 
land  claimed  to  be  theirs  they  now  propose  to  surrender  to 
the  Crown.  Two  maps  colored  in  this  manner  were  accord- 
ingly obtained  from  the  Company,  and  are  appended  to  this 
report. 

Accompanying  these  maps  was  a  letter  from  Sir  Edmund 
Head,  dated  tlie  7th  December,  1864,  which,  without  abating 
his  proposal  of  IStli  April,  offered  as  an  alternative — 

1.  That  the  Company  be  paid  ^1,000,000  sterling. 


345 


,tion  and 

imunica- 
f\ratkin'8 
'amation 
elegraph 
land  per 
are  mile, 

0  accept 

deferred 

bo  Trea- 


le  under- 
md  •when 
jh  a  Bum- 

tlie  nego- 
ompany's 
•nment  of 
1  negotia- 
tory  solu- 
on  of  the 

le  oiTer  of 
inod  from 
territory 
property, 
ion  of  the 
render  to 
e  accord- 
ad  to  this 

Edmund 
t  abating 


2.  That  the  Government  of  British  North  America  acknow- 
ledge the  Company's  right  to  trade,  without  exclusive  privileges 
of  any  kind,  within  the  Territory. 

3.  That  the  Company  should  hold  in  fee  simple  all  their 
posts  now  occupied,  with  a  reasonable  area  around  each  post. 
All  previous  sales  and  bargains  made  by  them  at  Red  River 
shall  be  confirmed. 

4.  That  the  Government  of  British  North  America  shall 
impose  no  exceptional  taxes  on  the  Company,  its  property,  or 
its  servants. 

5.  That  the  disputed  matter  of  the  Company's  lands  in 
Canada  be  settled  by  issuing  grants  on  the  footing  formerly 
agreed  upon  between  Mr.  Vankoughnett  and  Mr.  Hopkins. 

6.  That  the  Company  shall  be  bound  to  hand  over  to  the 
Government  of  British  North  America  all  the  materials  for 
the  construction  of  the  telegraph  on  the  payment  of  the  cost 
price  and  expenses  already  incurred. 

In  discussing  with  Mr.  Cardwell  those  demands  of  the  Hud- 
son's Bay  Company,  I  pointed  out  what  appeared  to  me  the 
utterly  untenable  characier  of  their  pretensions.  I  endeavored 
to  show  that  they  were  seeking  to  sell  to  Her  Majesty's  Gov- 
ernment, for  an  enormous  sum,  territory  to  which  they  had  no 
title  under  their  charter;  and  I  contended  if  the  solution  of 
the  question  was  to  be  sought  in  the  purchase  of  a  portion  of 
the  Company's  territorial  claims,  the  first  step  was  clearly  to 
ascertain  what  validity  there  was  in  those  claims — what  land 
the  Company  really  had  to  sell. 

I  further  stated,  as  my  personal  view  of  the  matter,  that  no 
solution  would  be  satisfactory  to  the  people  of  Canada  short 
of  the  entire  extinction  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company's  ter- 
ritorial claims  and  exclusive  rights  of  trade.  I  pointed  out 
that  to  recognize  and  maintain  the  exclusive  pretensions  of 
the  Company  over  a  large  portion  of  the  continent,  and  to 
give  it  thereby  a  monopoly  of  the  lucrative  fur  trade,  would 
be  simply  erecting  a  barrier,  in  the  way  of  the  rapid  settle- 
ment of  the  country  and  laying  the  foundation  for  serious 
difficulty  when  the  cou.;try  became  settled,  and  for  a  further 


^ 


..fa 


346 


Ki 


demand  on  the  part  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  some  years 
hence  for  the  final  extinction  of  its  claims. 

I  urged  that,  in  view  of  the  present  unsettled  position  of  the 
American  continent,  it  was  of  the  highest  importance  to  attract 
to  British  America  as  large  a  share  as  possible  of  the  Euro- 
pean emigration ;  that  the  opening  up  of  the  northwest  ter- 
ritories, with  all  their  agricultural,  mineral,  and  fur-trading 
advantages,  would  conduce  vastly  to  that  end;  and  that  a 
further  delay  of  this  st«p  would  (from  the  immigration  of 
Americans  now  going  on  into  the  territory)  render  the  estab- 
lishment of  British  institutions  in  the  settled  portions  of  the 
country  much  more  difficult  than  if  action  were  taken  now. 

Denying  the  claims  set  up  by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company, 
I  further  contended  that  even  were  all  their  pretensions  ad- 
mitted for  the  sake  of  argument,  the  sum  demanded  by  the 
Company — namely,  one  million  sterling — was  much  more  than 
they  were  entitled  to  receive  for  the  entire  extinction  of  their 
claims  from  the  Atlantic  to  the  Rocky  Mountains  and  from 
the  American  line  to  the  extreme  north.  I  pointed  out  that 
it  was  only  eighteen  months  since  the  rights  of  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company  had  passed  by  purchase  into  the  hands  of  the 
present  proprietors;  that  they  paid  £1,500,000  for  those 
rights,  which  was  fifty  per  cent,  above  the  then  market  value 
of  the  property;  and  I  referred  to  the  official  prospectus,  on 
w^ich  the  new  Company  was  formed  in  July,  18G3,  for  proof 
that  the  demand  now  made  on  Her  Majesty's  Government  by 
the  Compaay  was  utterly  unreasonable.  I  drew  Mr.  Card- 
well's  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  prospectus  declared  that 
the  assets  of  the  new  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  exclusive  of 
the  landed  territory,  had  been  "recently  valued  by  competent 
valuers  at  i;l, 023,509  sterling,"  and  that  these  assets  were 
further  explained  to  consist  of  "goods  in  the  interior,  on  ship- 
board, and  other  stock  in  trade,  including  shipping,  business 
premises,  and  other  buildings  necessary  for  carrying  on  the 
fuv  trade."  I  pointed  out  that,  in  addition  to  this  large  amount 
of  convertible  property,  "a  cash  balance,"  derived  from  the  old 
Hudson's  Bay  Company,  was  spoken  of  in  the  prospectus;  and 
that  other  large  landed  possessions,  besides  those  to  the  east 


Mr 


years 

of  the 
ittract 
Euro- 
st  ter- 
rading 
that  a 
tioa  of 
!  estab- 
of  the 
now. 
mpany, 
ions  ad- 
by  the 
)re  than 
of  their 
iid  from 
)ut  that 
ludson's 
Is  of  the 
or  those 
:et  value 
)ctus,  on 
"or  proof 
meut  by 
Card- 
,rcd  that 
usive  of 
ompetent 
ets  were 
on  ship- 
jusiuesB 
g  on  the 
c  amount 
m  the  old 
tus;  and 
the  east 


of  the  Rocky  Mountains  and  north  of  the  American  line,  'were 
thus  set  forth  in  the  prospectus  as  being  part  of  the  property 
purchased  by  the  new  Company: 

"/«  addition  to  its  chartered  territory,  the  Company  possess 
the  following  valuable  landed  property:  several  plots  of  land 
in  British  Columbia,  occupying  most  favorable  sites  at  the 
mouths  of  rivers,  the  titles  to  which  have  been  confirmed  by 
Her  Majesty's  Government;  farms,  building-sites  in  Van- 
couver's Island,  and  in  Canada  ton  square  miles,  at  Lacloche, 
on  Lake  Huron;  and  tracts  of  land  at  fourteen  other  places." 

In  addition  to  all  this,  I  directed  Mr.  C'lrdweU's  attention 
to  the  fact  that  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  held  a  claim 
against  the  American  Government,  and  which  was  at  that  mo- 
ment under  consideration  by  arbitrators,  for  the  surrender  of 
their  rights  on  the  Pacific,  south  of  the  boundary  esta1»lished 
under  the  Oregon  treaty.  I  stated,  on  information  that  had 
reached  me,  but  without  personal  knowledge  of  its  correctness, 
that  the  American  Government  had  exprossed  its  willingness 
to  pay  $1,000,000  for  the  extinction  of  that  claim,  but  that  the 
Company  rejected  it,  and  wore  in  expectation  of  receiving  a 
much  larger  sum. 

In  view  of  all  these  facts,  I  contended  that  it  was  utterly 
unreasonable  on  the  part  of  the  Company  to  claim  any  such 
sum  as  one  million  sterling,  even  for  the  entire  extinction  of 
their  territorial  and  trade  claims  cast  of  the  llocky  Mountains. 
But  I  admitted  that  it  was  for  her  Majesty  Imperial  Govern- 
ment to  settle  with  the  Hudson's  Bay  Com|»any  the  conside- 
ration to  be  paid  for  the  extinction  of  their  claims,  as  it  could 
not  be  expected  that  the  people  of  Canada  should  bear  the 
burden  of  extinguishing  a  monopoly  that  they  did  not  create, 
and  have  never  recognized,  and  tho  advantages  from  the  ex- 
tinction of  which  they  would  only  .sliare  in  common  with  the 
rest  of  her  Majesty's  subjects.  I  urged  that  the  Imperial 
Government  should,  without  delay,  secure  the  extinction  of 
the  Company's  claims,  and  .that  the  Government  of  Canada 
would  be  prepared  to  assume  tlie  duty  and  cost  of  opening  up 
communications  into  the  country  and  establishing  local  goy- 
ernment  in  the  settled  portions. 
24  B 


848 

I  had  the  honor  of  interviews  with  several  of  her  Majesty's 
Ministers,  who  were  then  in  London,  in  which  I  was  permitted 
to  urge  these  views  to  a  greater  or  less  extent.  But  the  Christ- 
mas holidays  liaving  intervened,  and  being  compelled  to  leave 
England  in  time  to  be  present  at  the  opening  of  the  Canadian 
Parliament,  on  the  19th  January,  I  was  unable  to  press  the 
matter  to  a  close.  I  therefore  suggested  to  Mr.  Cardwell  that 
I  would  report  to  your  excellency  the  point  to  which  the  discuss- 
ion had  been  brought,  and  that  when  the  proposed  deputation 
of  members  of  the  Canadian  Government  visited  Efigland  in 
the  spring  the  negotiation  might  be  resumed,  and,  if  possible, 
brought  to  a  satisfactory  termination.  Mr.  Cardwell  kindly 
consented  to  this  arrangement. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  my  lord,  your  most  obedient  servant, 

Geo.  Brown. 


C— 2. 


i 


Extract  from  a  Report  of  the  Delegates,  dated  12th  July,  1865, 
appointed  to  proceed  to  England,  by  order  in  Council  of  24th 
'  March,  1865. 

1$  If  >¥  *  *  *  * 

The  important  question  of  opening  up  for  settlement  and 
cultivation  the  vast  British  territories  on  the  northwest  bor- 
ders of  Canada  next  obtained  the  attention  of  the  conference. 

Your  excellency  is  aware  that  the  desire  of  the  Govern- 
ment of  Canada  for  a  satisfactory  and  final  adjustment  of  this 
matter  has  been  often  formally  expressed.  In  your  excellen- 
cy's dispatch  of  19th  January,  1864,  to  the  Colonial  Secretary, 
the  anxious  desire  of  the  Canadian  Government  was  communi- 
cated "  for  some  speedy,  inexpensive,  and  mutually  satisfactory 
plan"  for  settling  definitely  the  northwestern  boundary  of 
Canada,  "  and  the  claim  of  Canada  was  asserted  to  all  that 
portion  of  Central  British  America  which  can  be  shown  to 
have  been  in  the  possession  of  the  French  at  the  period  of  the 
cession  of  1763." 


349 


esty's 
nitted 
Ihrist- 
\  leave 
ladian 
ss  the 
ill  that 
iscuss- 
itation 
and  in 
)ssible, 
kindly 

lervant, 

lOWN. 


\ 

hj,  1865, 
'  of  24e7» 


ent  and 
est  bor- 
ercnce. 
Govern- 
it  of  this 
xccllen- 
crctary, 
ommuni- 
sfactory 
iidary  of 
all  that 
hovrn  to 
od  of  the 


In  reply  to  this  dispatch,  Mr.  Cardwell,  on  1st  July,  1864, 
requested  to  bo  informed  whether  the  Government  of  Canada 
was  prepared  to  assist  in  negotiations  with  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company,  with  the  view  of  accepting  any  portion  of  the  terri- 
tory now  claimed  by  that  Company,  and  providing  the  means 
of  local  administration  therein,  and  he  suggested  that,  if  so 
prepared,  it  would  be  desirable  that  some  person,  duly  author- 
ized to  communicate  the  views  of  the  Canadian  Government, 
should  be  sent  to  England  for  that  purpose. 

On  the  11th  November,  1864,  a  minute  of  Council  was 
approved  by  your  excellency,  in  reply  to  Mr.  Cardwell's 
dispatch.  It  set  forth  that  the  Government  of  Canada  was 
ready  and  anxious  to  co-operate  with  the  Imperial  Government 
in  securing  the  early  settlement  of  the  northwest  territories, 
and  the  establishment  of  local  .government  in  its  settled 
portions ;  but  that,  in  its  opinion,  the  first  step  towards  that 
end  was  the  extinction  of  all  claims  by  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company  to  proprietary  rights  in  the  soil  and  exclusive  rights 
of  trade. 

It  suggested  that  it  was  for  the  Imperial  Government,  and 
not  for  the  Government  of  Canada,  to  assume  the  duty  of 
bringing  to  an  end  a  monopoly  originating  in  an  English 
charter,  and  exercised  so  long  under  imperial  sanction ;  but 
that,  when  the  negotiations  were  brought  to  a  close,  the  Gov- 
ernment of  Canada  would  be  ready  to  arrange  with  the  Im- 
perial Government  f  the  annexation  to  Canada  of  such 
portions  of  the  territory  as  might  be  available  for  settlement, 
as  well  as  for  the  opening  up  of  communications  into  the 
territory,  and  providing  means  of  local  administration ;  or, 
should  the  Imperial  Government  prefer  to  erect  the  territory 
into  a  Crown  colony,  the  Canadian  Government  would  gladly 
co-operate  in  the  opening  up  of  communication  into  the  terri- 
tory, and  the  settlement  of  the  counti'y. 

The  minute  finally  suggested  that  the  honorable  President 
of  the  Council,  while  in  England,  would  communicate  more 
fully  to  Mr.  Cardwell  the  views  of  the  Canadian  Government. 

The  negotiations  that  followed  on  this  dispatch  satisfied  us 
of  the  impossibility  of  enforcing  the  end  sought  by  Canada 


850 


without  long,  protracted,  vexatious,  and  costly  litigation. 
The  Hudson's  Bay  Company  were  in  possession,  and,  if  time 
were  their  object,  could  protract  the  proceedings  iiulefinitely, 
and  her  Majesty's  Government  appeared  unwilling  to  ignore 
pretensions  that  had  frequently  received  quasi  recognition 
from  the  imperial  authorities.  Calling  to  mind,  therefore,  the 
vital  importance  to  Canada  of  having  that  great  and  fertile 
country  opened  up  to  Canadian  enterprise,  and  the  tide  of 
emigration  into  it  directed  through  Canadian  channels;  re- 
membering, also,  the  danger  of  large  grants  of  land  passing 
into  the  hands  of  mere  moneyed  corporations,  and  embarrassing 
the  rapid  settlement  of  the  country ;  and  the  risk  that  the 
recent  discoveries  of  gold  on  the  eastern  slope  of  the  Rocky 
Mountains,  and  north  of  the  American  or  Canadian  lines, 
should  be  made  over  to  Canada,  subject  to  such  rights  as  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company  miglit  be  able  to  establish  ;  and  that 
the  compensation  to  that  Company  (if  any  were  found  to  be 
due)  should  be  met  by  a  loan  guaranteed  by  Great  Britain ; 
the  Imperial  Government  consented  to  this,  and  a  careful 
investigation  of  the  case  satisfies  us  that  the  compensation  to 
the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  cannot,  under  any  circumstances, 
be  onerous.  It  is  but  two  years  since  the  present  Hudson's 
Bay  Company  purchased  the  entire  property  of  the  old  Com- 
pany ;  they  paid  ,£1,500,000  for  the  entire  property  and  assets, 
in  which  were  included  a  large  sum  of  cash  on  hand,  large 
landed  properties  in  British  Columbia  and  elsewhere,  not 
included  in  our  arrangement,  a  very  large  claim  against  the 
United  States  Government  under  the  Oregon  treaty,  and  ships, 
goods,  pelts,  and  business  premises  in  England  and  Canada, 
valued  at  £1,023,509.  The  value  of  the  territorial  rights  of 
the  Company,  therefore,  in  the  estimation  of  the  Company 
itself,  will  be  easily  arrived  at. 


Certified : 


Wm.  II.  Lee, 

Clerk  Execxitive  Council. 


ition. 
time 
litely, 
gnore 

II  ition 
re,  the 
fertile 
ide  of 
Is;  re- 
)assing 
rassing 
lat  the 

Rocky  • 
1  lines, 
s  as  the 
ncl  that 
(1  to  be 
Britain ; 

careful 
iation  to 
istances, 
luilson's 

III  Com- 
d  assets, 

d,  large 
icre,  not 

inst  the 
lid  ships, 

Canada, 
rights  of 

lompany 


huncih 


351 

C— 3.    ■•,  '     •,  ;  •  ' 

Extract  from  Captain  Palliser'%  Exploration  of  British  North 
America,  Parliamentary  Papers,  May  19,  1863,  p.  165. 

(1858.) — October  7. — After  going  an  hour  this  morning,  we 
crossed  Elk  river,  close  by  where  it  joins  the  Kootenay.     We 
then  passed  through  fine  open  forest  land,  growing  on  the  shin- 
gle terraces,  which  are  cut  up  by  ravines.     At  where  I  thought 
the  49th  parallel  must  cross  the  valley  it  is  rather  contracted, 
and  we  passed  along  the  slide  of  an  abrupt  slope  to  our  left.    We 
then  reached  a  second  wide  expanse  of  prairies,  the  first  being 
where  we  left  Mitchell  Camp.     Crossing  them,  at  1.30  we 
reached  the  Kootenay  Post.     It  is  merely  a  little  log  cabin, 
and  we  found  Mr.  Linklater,  the  Company's  clerk,  who  is  here 
alone,  in  charge  of  this  place,  being  in  a  canvas  tent.     He 
only  arrived  with  his  goods  from  Colvile  ten  days  ago,  having 
taken  nineteen  days  to  make  the  trip,  as  his  horses  were  in 
bad  condition.     The  goods  are  brought  here  packed  on  horses, 
in  the  end  of  summer,  and  distributed  to  the  Kootenay  Indians, 
who  bring  in  their  furs  in  return  by  the  beginning  of  March ; 
and  then,  before  the  snow  melts,  they  are  conveyed  down  to 
Colvile  in  the  manner  the  goods  were  brought.     The  return 
trip  at  so  early  a  season  is  justly  considered  one  of  the  hardest 
and  most  fatal  to  horses  that  is  made  in  the  country ;  but,  if 
it  is  not  effected  before  the  floods  commence,  the  rise  of  the 
rivers  and  Lakes  is  so  enormous,  that  the  country  becomes  quite 
impassable  until  the  end  of  July.     The  furs  got  at  this  post 
are  of  good  quality,  and  generally  amount  to  200  bears,  (prin- 
cipally black  and  brown,)  600  martens,  300  beavers,  &c. 

Linklater  was  glad  to  see  us,  and  very  kindly  supplied  us 
with  a  few  luxuries,  which  I  am  afraid  he  could  ill  spare  from 
his  slender  supplies.  Among  these  was  tea,  which  we  now 
tasted  for  the  first  time  for  more  than  two  months,  during 
which  we  had  tried  a  variety  of  abominable  substitutes  for 
that  best  of  luxuries  to  the  traveller. 


852 

October  8. — The  latitude  of  the  Kootenay  Post  I  found  to 
be  48°  55'  N.,  or  five  miles  south  of  the  boundary  line.  Its 
altitude  above  the  sea  is  about  2,300  feet,  or  nearly  the  same 
as  the  plains  next  Fort  Edmonton. 

\ 


\l'. 


C— 4. 

No.  84. — Copy  of  Dispatch  from  Governor  Douglas  to  the  Might 
Hon.  Sir  E.  B.  Lytton,  Bart. 

(No.  50.) 

Victoria,  Vancouvkr's  Island, 

December  7,  1868. 

[Received  January  29,  1859.    Answered,  No.  17,  February  8,  1859,  p.  79.] 

Sir  :  1.  I  have  the  honor  of  transmitting  herewith  copy  of 
a  letter  lately  addressed  to  me  by  the  agents  of  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company  residing  at  this  place,  setting  forth  the  claims 
of  the  Company  to  certain  tracts  of  land  connected  with  their 
several  trading  establishments  in  British  Columbia,  which  they 
have  occupied  for  many  years,  and  improved  settlement  and 
otherwise  at  much  expense. 

2.  Her  Majesty's  Government  may  probably  consider  that 
the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  have  acquired  rights  to  the  soil 
through  permissory  occupation  and  improvement,  as  well  as 
by  the  public  services  which  the  Company  have  rendered  to 
the  country,  and  may,  therefore,  meet  their  claims  in  a  spirit 
of  judicious  liberality,  especially  as  the  settlement  of  the 
Company's  possessory  rights  in  Oregon,  resting  on  the  con- 
struction of  the  third  article  of  the  treaty  of  the  17th  of  July, 
1846,  with  the  United  States  of  America,  will  probably  be 
influenced  by  the  decision  of  her  Majesty's  Government  in 
allowing  or  disallowing  the  possessory  rights  of  the  Company 
in  British  Columbia. 

I  have,  &c.,  v 

(Signed)  James  Douglas,  Governor. 

The  Right  Hon.  Sir  E.  B.  Lytton,  Bart.^ 

&c.,  &c.,  &c. 


858 


[Emolosurs  im  No.  34.1 

Copy  of  a  Letter  from  John  Wark  and  Dugald  Mactavish, 
Chief  Factors  Hudson  a  Bay  Company,  to  Governor  DouglaSy 
dated    Victoria,  Vancouver's  Island,  November  24,  ]  858. 

Sir:  We  beg  lo  call  your  excellency's  attention  to  the  fol- 
lowing list  of  claims  to  land  in  British  Columbia,  which  we 
consider  as  belonging  to  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  and 
trust  that  their  title  to  the  same  will  eventually  be  confirmed 
by  her  Majesty's  Government. 

1.  Old  Fort  Langloy. 

2.  New  Fort  Langley  and  adjacent  farms. 
8.  Point  at  the  forks  of  Smess  river. 

4.  Point  at  the  forks  of  Harrison's  river. 

5.  Fort  Hope,  with  cleared  land  adjoining,  especially  block 
No.  1,  on  official  map  of  the  town,  which  encroaches  on  the 
fort. 

6.  Fort  Yale,  portion  marked  "reserve,"  and  block  XVII 
on  official  map  of  the  town. 

7.  Fort  Dallas. 

8.  Fort  at  Kamloops,  known  as  Thompson's  river,  with  lands 
adjacent. 

9.  Fort  Douglas. 

10.  Fort  Shepherd,  on  the  Columbia  river,  with  adjoining 
lands. 

11.  Fort  in  the  Kootenay  country,  if  north  of  the  49th 
parallel. 

12.  The  various  posts  in  New  Caledonia  belonging  to  the 
Company,  and  other  points  along  the  route  from  Fort  Hope 
to  Thompson's  river  and  New  Caledonia,  not  permanently 
occupied,  but  improved  by  the  sowing  of  grass  seeds. 

13.  Fort  Simpson,  with  lands  adjoining. 

14.  Fort  McLoughlio. 

Your  excellency  is  no  doubt  aware  that  we  are  unable  at 
present  more  particularly  to  define  the  limits  of  the  Com- 
pany's claims ;  but  we  hope  the  foregoing  statement  is  suffi- 


..  / 


<♦    •• .  k^  '> 


r! 


864 

ciently  oxplicit  for  tho  authoritiei  to  act  upon,  until  accurate 
surveys  can  bo  made  of  the  whole. 

We  have,  &c., 
(Signed)  John  Wark, 

DUHALU  MACTAVI8II, 

Chief  Factor*  lfudiion'«  Bay  Company. 


No.  10. — Copy  of  Dispatch  from  Sir  E.  B.  Lytton,  Bart.,  to 

Governor  Douglas^  C.  B. 
,   (No.  17.) 
/  DowNixa  Street,  February  8, 1859. 

Sir:  I  have  to  acknowledge  tho  receipt  of  your  dispatch, 
No.  50,  (p.  44,)  of  the  7th  of  Duccnibur  last,  relative  to  the 
claims  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  to  lands  adjoining  their 
trading  establishments  in  British  Columbia. 

I  should  also  wish,  before  deciding  on  these  chiims,  to 
receive  a  report  through  you  from  the  Commissioner  of  Crown 
Lands;  and  I  request,  therefore,  that  you  will  consult  with 
Colonel  Moody  in  the  matter. 

I  have,  &c., 
(Signed)  E.  B.  Lytton. 

^  Governor  Douglas,  C.  B.,  &c.,  &c.,  &c. 


C— 6. 

(    PICE  OP  Assistant  Quartermaster, 
Columbia  Barracks,  Okeuon,  July  16,  1852. 

Major:  I  have  the  honor  to  submit  the  following,  in  answer 
to  your  letter  of  June  23,  in  relation  to  tho  reservations  of 
lands  in  this  territory  by  our  military  officers  for  military  uses. 

I  must  state,  that  I  have  been  unable  to  find  the  necessary 
record  of  order  and  letters  that  would  allow  me  to  base  a  report 
upon  written,  authentic  data.  They  should  have  been  found 
in  the  office  of  the  late  Assistant  Adjutant  General  of  this 
Department,  but  they  may  have  been  transferred. 


.'1 


jurate 


any. 


art.  J  to 

[859. 
.spatch, 
s  to  the 
ig  their 

liins,  to 
;  Crown 

lit  with 

.  \ 

TTON. 


1852. 

n  answer 

ations  of 

(try  uses. 

ecessary 

a  report 

on  found 

1  of  this 


Ist.  In  February,  1850,  by  order  of  Colonel  W.  W.  Loring, 
then  in  commaiid  of  this  Department,  I  isHued  due  notice, 
declaring  the  island  known  as  "Miller's  Island,"  lying  in  the 
Columbia  river,  and  from  five  to  twelve  miles  above  this  post, 
a  "reserve  for  public  uses,"  &c.    This  island  contains,  proba- 
bly, about  four  square  miles,  though  I  have  never  had  it  sur- 
veyed, for  the  want  of  proper  instruments.     It  is  something 
more  than  five  miles  in  length  by  three-quarters  in  breadth. 
During  high  water,  in  Juno  of  each  year,  most,  if  not  all,  of 
this  island  is  inundated;  but  during  the  rest  of  the  year  it  has 
heretofore  proved  of  great  advantage  to  our  Govornmctit.     I 
have  hay  of  good  quality  cut  there  and  boated  to  this  post, 
and  in  autumn  all  the  animals  not  wanted  for  service  are 
placed  there,  and  grazed  with  perfect  safety,  until  the  suc- 
ceeding spring.     When  the  reservation  was   declared,  there 
was  no  claimant  or  other  person  on  the  island.     No  one  has  a 
shadow  of  claim  to  the  premises  except  the  United  States.    I 
am  told  that  two  squatters  (by  the  advice  of  u  Portland  law- 
yer) have  recently  squat  on  the  upper  part  of  the  island.     I 
have  sent  a  notice  for  them  to  leave,  and  shall  go  myself  on 
the  22d  instant  to  be  sure  that  they  are  off.     I  would  recom- 
mend that  this  island  be  kept  as  a  reserve  so  long  as  this  point 
is  garrisoned. 

2d.  Soon  after  Major  Hatbeway  occupied  Astoria,  he  de- 
clared certain  lands  at  that  place  a  reserve.  There  are  several 
claimants  for  improvements,  among  whom  are  Messrs.  Shively, 
McClure,  Ilensill,  Ingalls,  and  Marlin. 

Major  Hatheway  took  some  of  their  houses,  and  appraised 
their  value  at  some  $9,000.  I  do  not  believe  that  any  of  them 
had  the  slightest  right  to  a  foot  of  the  soil;  consequently,  no 
right  to  have  erected  improvements  there.  But,  by  a  letter 
from  the  honorable  Secretary  of  War,  I  know  that  the  place 
is  to  be  abandoned;  and  as  I  have  recently  reported  on  the 
subject  to  General  Jesup,  I  will  pass  on  to  the  next  in  point 
of  time. 

3d.  The  commanding  officer  at  the  Dalles  of  the  Columbia 
declared  a  reserve  of  ten  miles  square  at  that  place.  The 
present  public  buildings  are  in  the  centre  of  the  reservation. 


i 


i 


>■/ 


4 

i 

! 

I 


'    .  ! 


I. 


i 


■i' 


7 


356 

There  were  no  claimants  within  its  limits  at  the  time,  if  the 
Methodist  missionaries  be  excepted.  One  of  their  sect,  a  Mr. 
Roberts,  made  some  pretensions  to  a  claim,  but  he  evidently 
had  no  good  foundation.  Having  never  visited  the  place,  I 
cannot  state  its    f^sources  or  probable  value. 

4th.  A  reserve  near  Mil  aukee  was  partially  surveyed  by 
Captain  J.  P.  Hatch,  in  the  spring  of  1850,  and  declared  a 
reserve  by  Colonel  Loring,  as  a  site  for  an  arsenal.  It  has 
recentlv  hp^n  confirmed  bv  the  President,  but  its  boundaries 
aio  not  finally  established.  This  reservation  will  take  all  the 
land  claim  of  one  William  Meek,  and  a  part  of  that  of  Llew- 
ellen.  The  former  had  improvements  to  the  value  of  $150; 
the  latter  none  it  all.  The  reservation  will  contain  about  one 
and  one-third  square  miles.  It  is  highly  valuable  to  the 
United  States. 

5th.  Colonel  Loring,  still  in  command  of  this  Department, 
declared  a  reserve  of  four  miles  square  at  this  place,  on  the 
31st  of  October,  1850.  The  flag-staff  occupies  the  centre,  and 
all  the  jiublic  buildings  are  near.  It  is  the  spot  first  selected 
as  garrison  and  depot  on  the  arrival  of  troops  here,  and  ia 
still  believed  to  be  far  the  most  eligible  site  in  the  Territory. 
It  has  more  resources  for  a  military  depot  than  any  other 
Known  to  any  of  us  who  have  been  here  longest.  It  answers 
well  as  a  depot  for  army  stores  and  a  rendezvous  for  troops, 
and  a  starting-point  to  any  place  in  the  interior. 

By  the  terms  of  the  declaration,  the  possessory  rights  of  the 
Hudson's  Hay  Company,  as  guarantied  by  treaty,  are  to  be 
respected.  I  append  a  copy  of  a  letter  from  the  Chief  Factor, 
in  charge  of  *he  Company's  interest  here,  to  the  commanding 
oflicer  of  this  post,  to  give  you  a  correct  idea  how  the  matter 
stands  between  that  Company  and  the  United  States.  It  is 
ray  duty  to  give  it  as  my  opinion  that  this  is  the  most  supe- 
riorpoint  on  the  river  for  a  military  reservation  of  small  extent; 
that  the  place  is  abundantly  large  both  for  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company  and  the  military  post  and  depot,  and  that  no  difference 
of  opinion  will  ever  arise  as  to  ownership  or  jurisdiction  be- 
tween the  representatives  of  that  Company  and  the  United 
States  troops.    Most  of  the  reserve  is  of  little  value  to  the 


357 

post,  except  it  might,  if  confirmed,  give  the  commantlirig  officer 
power  to  select  his  neighbors  by  leasing  out  parceln  of  land, 
as  contemplated  by  the  instructions  from  the  War  Dcpartmont 
issued  January  29,  1848. 

For  the  use  of  a  post,  simply  a  reservation  of  one  mile  square 
would  answer  all  purposes.  Let  the  lines  run  as  followx:  from 
the  point  where  a  meridian  line  one-half  of  a  mile  cast  from 
the  present  flag-staflf  touches  the  bank  of  tho  Columbia  river, 
run  due  north  one  mile;  thence  due  west  one  mile;  thoncc  due 
south  to  the  Columbia  river;  thence  by  course  of  said  river  to 
the  place  of  beginning.  Were  the  limits  of  the  reserve  re- 
duced as  indicated,  there  cou^'  be  no  claimant,  except  tho 
Hudson's  Bay  Company,  for  damages,  that  I  am  aware  of.  It 
is  not  at  all  probable  that  the  Company  would  ever  set  up 
any  claim.  At  the  time  the  present  reserve  was  declared,  there 
were  Home  two  or  three  retired  servants  of  tho  HmlHon's  Bay 
Company  living  within  its  limits,  but  they  have  never  been 
disturbed,  as  they  were  not  in  the  way  of  the  garrison,  and  aa 
they  were  and  are  living,  as  stated,  by  the  permission  of  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company.  A  few  American  citizoiia  (throe) 
have  created  some  improvements  subsequent  to  the  declaration 
of  the  reserve.  Colonel  Loring  did  not  drive  thorn  off",  but 
they  were  properly  notified  that  the  United  States  would  never 
consider  them  as  entitled  to  any  compensation  for  their  im- 
provements. They  were  r.nd  are  willing,  in  fact,  to  live  by 
sufi'eraace,  trusting  perhaps  that  the  United  Slates  will  not 
finally  keep  the  reserve. 

There  was  but  one  man,  aside  from  those  named  above,  liv- 
ing and  cuir;vating  within  the  limits  of  the  reservation  on  the 
31st  October,  1850.  He  is  an  American  citizen,  called  A.  M. 
Sho'-t.  He  had  at  that  date  improvements  not  to  exceed  ^1,500 
in  cash  value,  though  he  has  kept  on  regularly  increasing  tho 
number  and  value  of  his  improvements  subsequently,  againHt 
the  frequent  and  most  positive  warnings  of  myself  and  the  com- 
manding officer  of  this  post.  . 

It  has  always  been  contended  that  this  man  was  a  trcspasBor 
upon  the  possessory  rights  of  the  Hudson'ti  Bay  Company.  It 
is  certain  that  tke  Company  regard  him  in  that  light  at  the 


I  V 


■■} 


n 


!  , 


I 

f. 


358 

present  moment.  T  have  been  informed  that  he  was  forcibly 
ejected  under  the  old  provisional  government  of  this  territory, 
consequently  I  have  been  led  to  look  upon  him  as  a  person 
who  can  acquire  no  title  where  he  is. 

The  question  will  be  naturally  decided  when  it  is  known  what 
are  to  be  the  exact  limits  of  the  possessory  rights  of  the  Hud- 
son's Bay  Company.  If  it  be  decided  that  this  Short  had  no 
right  to  have  been  residing  within  the  reserve  at  the  time  re- 
ferred to,  and  I  presume  the  Company  will  test  it,  then,  of 
course,  he  never  can  have  any  claim  for  damages  6x  improve- 
ments against  our  Government.  If,  on  the  contrary,  the  lands 
upon  which  he  has  lived  be  decided  not  to  have  formed  a  part 
of  the  possessory  rights  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  and 
they  are  finally  confirmed  as  a  reserve,  then  Short  would  in 
equity  bo  entitled  to  compensation  for  his  improvements  only 
as  they  were  on  the  31st  October,  1850. 

In  addition  to  the  foregoing  reserves,  I  understand  that 
two  tracts  of  land  are  confirmed  near  the  mouth  of  this  river : 
one  at  Cape  Disappointment,  the  other  at  Point  Adams,  on 
Clatsop.  It  was  done  on  the  recommendation  of  the  joinf 
commission  who  made  a  reconnoisance  in  the  propeller  Mas- 
sachusetts. I  have  seen  no  official  announcement  of  these 
^•eservations. 

You  will  not  fail  to  observe  that  some  two  years  have  elapsed 
since  these  tracts  of  land  were  declared  reservations,  under 
what  the  officers  supposed  competent  authority ;  yet  only  in 
one  instance,  that  of  the  Milwaukee  reserve,  has  his  Excel- 
lency the  President  confirmed  the  act  of  bis  subordinates. 
The  citizens  living  near  and  upon  the  reservations  have  taken 
every  opportunity  to  oppose  the  confirmation — I  suppose  on 
private  grounds;  and  in  many  instances  have  put  our  military 
officers  to  no  little  trouble  and  pei  al  embarrassment.  It 
has  been  stated  that  the  simple  declaration  of  a  reserve  by 
a  military  officer  is  not  at  all  binding;  that  it  cannot  stop  citi- 
zens from  settling,  improving,  &c.,  within  the  limits  so  declared 
a  reserve.  It  certainly  places  officers  in  an  improper  and  awk- 
ward position  towards  citizens,  and  has  a  tendency  to  create 
prejudices  against  our  service. 


.,  ,..,v-ii.*+i''^'. 


359 

I  hope  the  cases  may  be  soon  brought  in  a  true  form  to  the 
consideration  of  the  President,  so  that  his  Excellency  may  set 
them  at  rest,  by  confirming  or  disapproving  these  reservations. 
So  far  as  my  knowledge  extends,  (and  I  have  long  been  here,) 
all  of  these  reservations,  particularly  the  one  at  this  point, 
are  of  importance  to  the  Government;  andin  no  instance  has 
any  considerable  real  damage  been  suffered  by  any  citizen  in 
consequence. 

I  believe  that  the  United  States  will  find  some  one  to  claim 
damages,  no  matter  tvhere  the  reserve  may  be  declared.  The 
justness  of  such  a  claim  is  another  affair.  Before  a  settlement 
is  made  witli  any  c'aiuiant.  the  nature  of  the  claim  and  the 
character  of  the  claimant  should  be  thoroughly  understood. 
Some  of  these  people,  by  petitions  and  arrangements  with 
petcy  politicians,  frequently  present  a  most  magnified  cai:e  of 
damages  against  tlie  United  States.  I  have  heard  that  these 
good  people  here  have  strongly  urged  that  no  reservation 
should  be  made,  and  no  doubt  that  their  representations,  added 
to  the  ex  parte  statements  of  the  late  Delegate,  Mr.  Thurston, 
have  induced  liis  Excellency  the  President  to  defer  acting  in 
the  premises  until  the  matter  could  be  better  comprcdicnded. 

All  these  reservations  may  be  considered  as  having  been 
declared  by  Brevet  Colonel  W.  W.  Lorini;;,  while  in  command 
of  this  department,  upon  the  general  direction  of  Brevet  Major 
General  P.  F.  S'uith,  while  he  was  in  command  of  this  division, 
based  probalily  on  the  letter  of  Secretary  Murcy,  dated  War 
Department,  Janui'.ry  29,  1848. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  major,  your  most  obeiliont  servant, 
(Signed)         .  llui'is  lN(iAM.s, 

Capf.  A.  V-  M. 

Major  0.  Cnos.s,  Chief  Quartcrniastrr, 

I\t"ijie  Jbicbion,  iSan  Fra)it'lsfO,  Califuniia. 


Oilicial: 

Bknj.  C.  Caiid, 

Col.  V-  ^^I'  Di'pt.,  Bvt.  Brlij.  General. 
Q.  M.  GENiiUAL's  Office,  Man  19,  18GiJ. 


I 


r' 


360 


I 


n 


Fort  Vancouver,  2l8t  February,  1852. 
To  Major  IIatebway,  V.  S.  A.,  Commanding  at  Fort  Van- 
coicver.' 

Dear  Sir:  In  reference  to  our  conversation  of  this  morn- 
ing, I  think  it  well  to  state  more  fully  than  I  may  possibly 
have  done  verbally  the  reasons  upon  which  my  opinion  ia 
founded. 

I  conceived,  and  still  think,  from  the  wording  of  the  public 
advertisement,  that  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  are  thereby 
precluded  from  instituting  any  legal  proceedings  against  par- 
ties infringing  upon  their  rights  within  the  limits  of  the  Gov- 
ernment reservation,  that  reservation  assuming  only  to  exclude 
intruders,  while  reserving  the  rights  of  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company.  Beyond  those  limits  I  consider  that  I,  as  the  agent 
of  the  Company,  am  bound,  for  our  own  protection,  to  warn 
off  parties  intruding  upon  our  claims,  though,  until  those 
claims  bo  formally  acknowledged,  on  the  completion  of  the 
official  survey,  I  may  defer  to  prosecute  at  law.  I  think  that 
upon  reconsidering  the  matter  you  will  agree  with  me  as  to 
this  distinction,  and  acknowledge  that,  in  referring  the  settle- 
ment of  all  trespasses  within  the  limits  of  the  Government 
reserve  to  the  military  authorities,  I  comply  strictly  with  the 
spirit  iis  well  as  the  letter  of  the  proclamation  issued  by 
Colonel  Loring. 

I  state  these  views  after  due  reflection,  and  conceiving  them 
to  coincide  accurately  with  those  expressed  by  m;'  predecessor, 
Mr.  Ogden.  In  thus  throwing  myself  unreservedly,  for  the 
protection  of  our  rights,  upon  the  military  authorities  within 
the  officially  proclaimed  limits,  I  do  so  without  engaging  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company  to  restrict,  in  any  shape,  the  just 
exercise  of  those  rights,  pointedly  respecting  always  the  claims 
of  the  United  States  Government,  where  these  claims  do  not 
interfere  directly  with  our  own. 

You  will,  I  feel  persuaded,  appreciate  the  motives  which  lead 
me  thus  to  state  my  views  frankly  for  your  consideration,  so 
that  all  occasion  of  future  misapprehension  between  us  may 
be  avoided.     In  doing  so,  permit  me  a'u  the  same  time  to  ac- 


',  1852. 
Wt   Van- 

lis  morn- 
r  possibly 
pinion  is 

he  public 
3  thereby 
ainst  par- 

tho  Gov- 
0  exclude 
on'a  Bay 
the  agent 
I,  to  warn 
itil  those 
jn  of  the 
hink  that 

me  as  to 
;he  settle- 
vernment 

with  the 
ssued  by 

ring  them 
jdecessor, 
y,  for  the 
ies  within 
aging  the 
the  just 
;he  claims 
ns  do  not 

fhich  lead 
ration,  so 
n  us  may 
me  to  ac- 


861 

knowledge  warmly  the  courteous  and  highly  obliging  conduct 
of  the  military  authorities  at  Fort  Vancouver,  both  towards 
my  predecessor  and  myself. 

With  sentiments  of  esteem  and  high  consideration,  permit 
me  to  subscribe  myself,  dear  sir,  your  most  obedient  servant, 

(Signed)  John  Ballendfx, 

.    '  Chief  Factor  Ron.  Iliuhon'a  Bay  Company, 

I  certify  that  this  is  a  true  copy. 

(^'S"ed)  RuFus  Inoalls, 

Capt  A,  Q.  M. 
Official: 

Benj.  C.  Card, 

Col  Q.  M.  I)ept,  Bvt.  Brig.  General. 
Q.  M.  General's  Office,  3Iay  19,  i860. 


C— 6. 

Annual  Report  of  the  Qmrtermaster  General  of  the  operations 
of  the  Quartermaster's  Department  for  the  fine  at  year  endina 
on  the  30th  June,  1850. 

A. 

^  A  report  in  the  form  of  a  journal,  to  the  Quartermaster 
General,  of  the  march  of  the  regiment  of  Mounted  Uiflcmen  to 
Oregon,  from  May  10  to  October  ">,  1849,  by  Major  O.  Cross, 
Quartermaster  United  States  Army. 


Extracts. 


"Oh.  VI.- 


-3Iarch  of  the  two  divisionH  from  Fort  ITall  to  Fort 
Boise,  303  miles. 

August  8.— The  morning  was  pleasant,  and  the  second  divis- 
ion commenced  their  march  at  10  a.  m.,  and  ('ticaiii|)(iil  on  the 
Port-Neuf,  about  eiglit  miles  from  here.     1   loft  at  2  p.  m., 


M 

1.    1 

1:   1 

f!  '■'< 

m          V 

t 


362 

and  passed  Fort  Hall,  a  trading  establishment  of  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company.  This  place  is  about  three  miles  below  where 
two  companies  of  the  rifle  regiment  have  chosen  for  the  site  of 
their  new  post.  It  is  built  of  clay,  and  much  in  the  form  of 
Fort  Laramie,  having  a  large  sally-port,  which  fronts  the  Port- 
Neuf,  with  its  walls  extending  back  towards  the  banks  of  Snake 
river.  There  is  a  block-hoase  at  one  of  the  angles,  and  the 
buildings  inside  are  built  against  the  side  of  the  wall,  and  of 
the  same  matorials.  The  main  building  is  occupied  by  the 
proprietor,  while  the  others  are  intended  for  store-rooms  and 
places  for  tlie  hands  who  are  employed  in  the  service  of  the 
Company.  The  rooms  are  all  small,  and  by  no  means  com- 
fortable; being  generally  intended  for  one  person,  they  are 
contracted  and  da'k,  having  but  a  small  window  and  one  door. 
This  place  is  occupied  by  Captain  Grunt,  who  has  been 
here  about  t'curtoen  years.  Ho  informed  me  tiiiit  he  had  en- 
deavored to  (.'ullivatc  the  soil,  but  to  no  success.  As  thev 
seldom  lia\  o  ruin  during  the  summer,  the  ground  becomes  very 
hard  and  buked,  truiispiration  water  from  the  river  not  being 
suflicicnt  to  keep  it  moist.  The  ground  presented  to  mo  a  fine, 
dark,  alluvial  soil,  and  by  proper  cultivation  would  produce 
well.  I  huvo  seldom  mot  with  uny  of  the  trailers,  however, 
either  on  the  Upper  Mississippi  or  this  route,  who  have  turned 


th 


eir  attt-ntioa  to  airriculturc  onou. 


ih  t( 


ence  or  ccrtaintv  on  the  suitiect 

ft/  <f 


speak  with  any  experi- 


ib 


There  are  along  the  river  small   quuiititios  of  cotton-wood, 


urticuhuiv  in   the  vicinitv  of  where  the  t 


wo  eoHipunies  are 


located.      With  the  excei)tion  of  this  advantage,  1  do  not  ad- 
ire  their  location  i'or  the  post.    I  presume  the  troops,  however. 


m 


will  not  he  retiuireil  to  occupy  this  post  very  long,  as  it  seems 
to  be  out  of  position,  not  heing  able  to  draw  jaoperly  the 
necessary  supplies  for  it  IViim  either  Fort  licaveiiworth  or 
Vaiieouver  ;  for  while  the  I'uiiner  is  1,41)0  miles'  land  transpor- 
tati"!  .  the  latter  is  upwards  id"  700  miles,  huvin;^'  the  Cascade 
and  i*iiie  mountains  to  j)ass  over,  which  are  \v\y  formidable 
burner- ;  and  the  whole  country  is  a  dreary  und  hurren  waste, 
where  iL*;re  is  but  little  or  no  ve;:etation. 

Thtjje  is  good  grazing  on  the  prairie  or  bottom  land  about 


868 


idson's 

Tvhere 

site  of 
'orm  of 
e  Port- 
■  Snake 
md  the 
,  and  of 

by  the 
jnis  and 
e  of  the 
ms  com- 
they  are 
lie  door. 
as   been 
I  had  eu- 
As  they 
mes  very 
lot  being 
[lie  a  fine, 

produce 

however, 
vu  turned 

y  oxperi- 

ou-wood, 

hiiiios  are 

|o  not  ad- 

liowever, 

it  seems 
[porly  the 
i  worth  or 

tiiinspor- 
:•  (Cascade 

ruiidable 

eu  waste, 

Luid  about 


here,  and  aroand  in  the  vicinity  of  where  the  post  is  to  be 
established,  which  is  four  miles  above,  and  the  same  point 
where  our  command  struck  the  river.  Here  the  troops  are 
able  to  procure  as  much  hay  as  may  be  required  by  them ;  but 
in  this  country  it  is  expected  that  the  horses  will  be  hardy 
enough  to  endure  the  winters  by  running  at  large  and  grazing 
on  the  bottom  lands. 

The  two  drawings  of  the  outer  and  inner  side  of  Fort  Hall, 

or  the  trading-post  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  will  give 

•  you  a  correct  idea  of  their  rude  construction,  and  I  find  but 

little  difference  in  any  of  them  on  the  route  to  the  Columbia 

river.— P.  73. 

******* 

We  arrived  at  Fort  Boise  about  5  p.  m.,  and  encamped 
on  a  small  creek  called  the  Owyhee,  about  three-quarters  of  a 
mile  from  the  trading-post  of  Fort  Boise,  which  is  on  the 
opposite  side  of  Snake  river,  and  immediately  on  its  banks. 
This  is  another  trading-post  established  by  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company,  for  the  same  purpose  as  that  of  Fort  Hall.     The 
walls  and  block-houses  are  placed  at  the  corners,  so  as  to  pro- 
tect the  several  sides;  the  sally-port  or  main  entrance  opens 
on  Snake  river,  and  inside  of  the  walls  the  buildings,  are 
arranged  around  the  four  sides,  one  story  high,  and  similar 
in  formation  in  every  respect.     The  material  of  which  they  are 
formed  is  of  clay,  and  in  dry  climates  [it]  makes  a  very  excel- 
lent building,  and  is  found  to  be  very  durable.     Some  of  these 
buildings  are  used  as  store-housea,  together  with  the  block- 
houses, to  keep  their  peltry.     They  are  contracted,  and  by  no 
means  intended  for  any  one  to  occupy  who  is  used  to  the  com- 
forts of  life.    The  engages,  however,  never  having  been  accus- 
tomed to  better,  are  perfectly  reconciled,  and,  so  long  as  they 
get  their  daily  food,  are  perfectly  happy  to  breathe  out  their 
lives  in  this  manner  among  the  Indians,  who  to  them  are  some- 
what like  what  the  peons  are  to  the  Mexicans. — P.  89. 
******* 

Ch.  IX. — Our  Journey  to  Fort  Vancouver  by  water. 
******* 
I  made  inquiries  relative  to  the  cultivation  of  the  soil  at 
25  B 


864 

Forts  Hall  and  Bois^,  and  learned  that  it  would  be  attended 
with  much  difficulty,  great  uncertainty,  and  no  profit. — P.  118. 


;h 


C— 7. 

Extract  from  *^ Report  of  Decisions  of  the  Commission  of  Claims, 
under  the  Convention  of  February  8, 1853,  between  the  United 
States  and  Great  Britain,  transmitted  to  the  Senate  by  the 
President  of  the  United  States,  August  11,  1856."— P.  164. 

HUDSON'S  BAY  COMPANY. 

Prior  to  the  extension  of  a  territorial  government  over 
Oregon  Territory,  the  settlers  had  voluntarily  formed  them- 
selves into  a  temporary  government.  While  in  this  situation 
war  occurred  with  the  Indians,  and  various  settlers  were  killed 
or  taken  into  captivity  by  them.  Application  of  the  then  ex- 
isting government  was  made  to  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company 
for  assistance,  which  was  readered,  and  resulted  in  the  relief 
and  restoration  of  the  Americans  who  had  been  captured.  Held 
that  a  claim  for  compensation  against  the  United  States  under 
such  circumstances  should  be  allowed. 

Held  also  that  a  similar  claim  for  expenditures  incurred  in 
procuring,  by  request  of  United  States  officers  on  the  coast, 
the  release  of  American  ship-wrecked  mariners  from  captivity 
by  the  Indians  should  be  allowed. 

In  the  autumn  of  1847,  a  number  of  American  emigrants 
and  settlers  in  Oregon  were  attacked  and  captured  by  the 
Cavuse  Indians.  In  this  attack  Dr.  Whitman,  an  American 
missionary,  and  his  wife  anu  eleven  others,  were  murdered, 
and  sixty-four  persons  captured.  These  captives  were  ran- 
somed through  the  agency  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company. 

The  country  was  not  at  tliattime  under  a  government  regu- 
larly established  by  the  United  States,  but  the  settlers  had 
formed  themselves  into  an  organization  and  government  of 
their  own,  and  they  immediately  passed  resolves  authorizing 
teh  enlistment  of  five  hundred  men,  and  the   borrowing  of 


365  . 

ten  thousand  dollars  to  repel  the  attacks  of  the  Indians,  and 
appointed  commissioners  to  negotiate  a  loan. 

They  applied  for  this  purpose  to  the  Hudson's  Bay  Com- 
pany. Their  agents  did  not  feel  authorized  to  make  a  loan, 
but  rendered  to  the  volunteers,  who  were  raised,  assistance  in 
provisions  and  stores  to  the  amount  of  $1,800,  as  is  alleged  by 
them  and  is  acknowledged  by  the  officers  of  the  said  govern- 
ment. Of  this  amount  it  appears  that  $599  have  been  paid  by 
the  Oregon  government,  leaving  a  balance  due  of  $1,201. 

The  Company  also  claim  a  further  sum  of  $1,838.91  of  the 
United  States  Government,  for  goods  supplied  from  Vancouver 
Island,  in  December,  1851,  on  the  application  of  American 
officers  on  that  coast,  for  the  purpose  of  procuring  the  release 
of  certain  American  mariners,  who  were  shipwrecked  near 
Queen  Charlotte's  Sound,  [Islands,]  and  retained  in  captivity 

by  the  Indians. 

Hannen, 
Agent  and  Counsel  for  Great  Britain. 
'  Thomas, 

Agent  and  Counsel  for  the  United  States. 


isvants 
)y  the 
icrican 
nlered, 
re  ran- 
iiny. 
it  regu- 
ers  had 
mcnt  of 
lorizing 
wing  of 


Hornby,  British  Commissioner,  delivered  the  opinion  of  the 
Commission: 

In  this  case  we  are  fortunately  relieved  from  any  conflict 
between  the  parties,  as  I  understand  it  to  be  conceded  that  the 
case  is  submitted  to  our  consideration  for  such  allowance  as 
we  think  is  justly  sustained. 

It  will  not  be  denied  that  the  settlers  of  the  Oregon  Terri- 
tory were  entitled  to  the  protection  and  aid  of  the  United 
States  Government.  She  had  not,  up  to  the  period  of  the 
calamity  referred  to,  extended  a  formal  territorial  government 
over  the  country;  but  her  citizens,  in  considerable  numbers, 
had  gone  on,  in  advance  of  provision  made  for  them  in  that 
respect,  and  were  occupying  the  country  for  the  ultimate 
benefit  of  the  United  States,  and  with  the  early  expectation  of 
the  formal  extension  of  the  powers  of  the  Government  over 
them. 

While  in  this  situation,  they  had  established,  temporarily,  a 


r 


866 


goTernment  of  their  own,  and  were  attacked  by  the  Indians 
under  circumstances  of  much  barbarity,  and  which  were  cal- 
culated to  put  in  jeopardy  the  safety  of  the  whole  colony. 

The  circumstances  required  immediate  effort  and  asHistance, 
and  this  assistance,  as  far  as  it  was  in  their  power,  was 
promptly  rendered  by  the  agents  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Com- 
pany. 

The  form  of  the  claim,  as  it  originally  existed,  was  not 
directly  against  the  United  States,  but  no  objection  is  inter- 
posed from  that  cause.  The  assistance  is  precisely  of  the 
character  the  Government  would  have  rendered,  could  appli- 
cation have  been  made  to  it ;  and  on  every  consideration  we 
are  quite  sure  we  shall  have  its  approbation  in  the  allowance 
of  the  claim,  which  appears  to  bo  preferred  hero  for  the  first 
time. 

The  other  item  of  claim  depends  on  circumstances  some- 
what similar.  .         -   ' 

Assistance  rendered  to  shipwrecked  mariners  is  in  conform- 
ity to  the  established  policy  of  both  Governments,  through 
their  consuls  and  other  officers  abroad,  and  in  this  case  the 
captivity  of  these  men  by  savages  was  superadded. 

The  assistance  rendered  through  the  agents  of  this  Com- 
,pany,  made  by  request  of  Americans  on  the  coast,  secured  the 
release  of  these  unfortunate  men ;  and  I  am  happy  in  having 
the  concurrence  of  my  colleague  i'l  granting  full  remuneration 
for  the  expenditures  incurred  in  effecting  so  laudable  an  ob- 
ject.    The  claims  for  these  services  ai'e  therefore  allowed. 


C— 8. 

Extract  from  Report  of  Captain  M.  E.  Van  Buren,  Mounted 
Riflemen,  of  date  May  30,  1850. 


^^       ■     lit  if  *■  4c  if  if 

Cape  Disappointment  lies  at  the  opposite  side  of  the  river, 
and  much  farther  west  into  the  ocean.    It  is  a  high,  bold  bluff, 


367 


ndians 
re  cal- 

ny. 

itance. 
If,  was 
y  Com- 
mas not 
s  inter- 
of  the 
1  appli- 
ition  we 
lowance 
the  first 

cs  some- 

conform- 

,  through 

case  the 

his  Com- 
cured  the 
in  having 
uneration 
le  an  ob- 
llowed. 


Mounted 


the  river, 
IboldblufiF, 


presenting  to  the  south  an  almost  perpendicular  face  of  rocks, 
of  about  two  hundred  and  fifty  feet  in  height.  From  the  crest, 
at  its  southern  extremity,  the  ground  slopes  abruptly,  at  places, 
at  an  angle  of  thirty  degrees,  to  the  north  and  east,  to  a  small 
marsh  and  a  sandy  ridge.  A  rocky  wall  bounds  the  cape  on 
all  sides,  interrupted  on  the  east  by  the  sandy  ridge  above 
spoken  of,  which  has  an  elevation  of  thirty  feet  above  high  water, 
and  by  the  small  marsh  and  sandy  beach  on  the  southwest.  The 
marsh  is  drained  by  a  small  brook,  which  empties  into  the 
ocean  at  the  base  of  McKenzie's  Head.  This  last  is  a  rock-bound 
hill,  detached  from  the  rocky  wall  of  the  cape  by  the  marsh 
and  sandy  beach.  It  has  an  elevation  equal  to  that  of  the 
point  of  the  oape,  is  bare  of  trees,  but  is  covered  with  a  rich 
soil,  which  is  cultivated,  affording  good  crops  of  potatoes,  &c. 

The  whole  surface  of  the  cape,  with  the  exceptions  above 
mentioned,  and  a  narrow  ridge  along  the  crest  at  its  most 
southern  extremity,  is  thickly  covered  with  fir  timber  of  a 
large  growth.  This  cape  completely  commands  the  north 
channel,  vessels  being  obliged  to  come  almost  within  musket- 
shot  of  the  point  marked  ^'B  "  on  the  map;  and,  coming  in  or 
going  out  by  this  channel,  they  would  be  in  range  of  guns  for 
two  or  three  miles.  The  point  "B"  is  a  small  irregular 
rocky  projection,  jutting  out  from  the  face  of  the  cliff,  much 
lower  than  it,  and  affording  a  good  site  for  a  water  battery. 

On  the  height  above,  "B,"  would  be  the  position  for  the 
main  work ;  but  to  prepare  a  sufficient  area  it  would  require 
cutting  down  in  front  and  filling  up  in  the  rear,  as  the  ridge 
along  the  face  is  very  narrow,  as  before  remarked. 

At  "B"  there  are  ttvelve  fathoms  water,  which  shoals  a  little 
towards  "C,"  where  there  are  nine.  The  an(;horage  is  off  the 
latter  point  in  this  curve  of  the  bay,  and  has  from  four  to  six 
fathoms  water.  I  rank  Cape  Disappointment  as  second  in  im- 
portance for  a  military  work. 

The  accompanying  map  of  Cape  Disappointment  is  from 
a  survey  by  Mr.  A.  L.  LeweS,  made  for  P.  S.  Ogden,  Esq., 
Chief  Factor  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  and  includes  the  claim 
of  the  latter  gentleman,  who  has  a  large  and  well-built  house 


^ 

.^^^i;^, 


IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


^    ^ 


1.0 


1.1 


u 


140 


12.0 

M 


• 

ll'-25ll'-ilJ4 

< 

6"     

^ 

I^tographic 

Sciences 

Corporation 


23  WIST  M«IM  STREIT 

WIUTM.N.Y.  KSJO 

(7I6)I73-4S03 


1^ 


^ 


V> 


868 

upon  it.    I  believe  it  includes  all  that  it  would  be  necessary 

to  reserve." 

******* 

Adjutant  General's  Office,  Washington. 
Official  extract: 

E.  D.  TOWNSBND, 

Aasittant  Adjutant  General. 


C— 9. 

Headquarters  Eleventh  Militart  Department, 
Fort  Vancouver,  0.  T.,  October  11,  1850. 
Notice  is  hereby  given  to  all  whom  it  may  concern,  that  » 
military  reservation  for  and  in  behalf  of  the  Government  of 
the  United  States  is  hereby  declared:  as  follows:  Commenc- 
ing at  the  point  where  a  meridian  line,  two  miles  west  from 
the  United  States  flag-staff,  at  the  military  post  near  Fort 
Vancouver,  0.  T.,  strikes  the  north  bank  of  Columbia  river ; 
thence  due  north,  on  said  meridian,  four  miles ;  thence  due 
dast  four  miles ;  thence  due  south  to  the  bank  of  the  Colum- 
bia river;  thence  down  said  bank  to  the  place  of  beginning. 
Said  reservation  being  subject  only  to  the  lawful  claims  of 
the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  as  guaranteed  under  the  treaty 
between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain,  dated  July  sev- 
enteenth, one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  forty-six.  All  im- 
provements made  within  the  above-described  limits,  by  resident 
•ettlers,  prior  to  the  date  of  this  notice,  will  be  appraised  by  a 
board  of  officers,  and  payment  recommended  foi'  the  same. 
(Signed)  W.  W.  Lorino, 

Lt.  Col.  M.  M.  R.  and  Brevet  Col.  U.  8.  Army, 

Commanding  llth  Military  Department. 
Official  copy: 
R.  M.  Morris, 
^    Acting  Amttant  Adjutant  General. 
Official : 

E.  D.  Townsend, 

Atmtant  Ac^utant  General. 


869 


essary 

c 

fton. 

D, 
eral. 


ST, 

1850. 
I,  that  » 
ment  of 
immenc- 
ist  from 
>ar  Fort 
a  river; 
snce  due 
J  Colum- 
iginning. 
slaitns  of 
le  treaty 
uly  sev- 
AU  im- 
resident 
ised  by  » 
same. 

0, 

rmy, 

riment. 


Headquarters  11th  Military  Department, 
Columbia  Barracks,  0.  T.,  November  20,  1850. 

General:  I  have  the  honor  to  transmit  herewith  a  map  of 
the  military  reservation  as  surveyed  and  established  at  this 
point,  subject  to  the  claims  of  the  Honorable  Hudson's  Bay 
Company,  as  guaranteed  under  treaty. 

I  am,  sir,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

W.  W.  LORINO, 

Lt.  Col.  R.  M.  B.  Brevet.  Col  U.  S.  Armi/, 
Commanding  11th  Military  Department. 
Bvt.  Maj.  General  R.  Jones, 

Adjt.  Genl  U.  S.  Army^  Washington  City. 


Official: 


E.  D.  TOWNSEND, 

Assistant  Adjutant  Creneral 


SEND, 

hneral. 


War  Department, 
Washington,  Augiist  8, 1851 
Brevet  Brigadier  General  E.  A.  Hitchcock, 

Commanding  Pacific  Division,  Sonoma,  California, 

Sir  :  Petitions  have  been  received  at  this  Department  from 
citizens  of  Vancouver,  Oregon,  stating  that  the  military  au- 
thorities at  the  fort  have  laid  off  a  military  reserve  adjacent 
thereto,  four  miles  square,  and  including  the  county  seat,  with 
sundry  improvements  belonging  to  an  individual. 

It  is  not  known  at  this  Department  how  far  these  repr«- 
sentations  are  correct.  The  only  information  on  file  respect- 
ing the  reserve  appears  to  be  a  map,  copied  by  Lieutenant  B. 
S.  Williamson  from  the  original,  drawn  by  Lieutenant  James 
Stuart,  from  which,  having  no  scale  attached,  its  extent  can- 
not be  ascertained.  It  appears,  however,  to  include  the  "Hud- 
son's Bay  Picket,"  and  "Hudson's  Bay  Village,"  besides  some 
cleared  and  cultivated  lands. 

It  is  obvious,  apart  from  any  reasons  stated  by  the  peti- 
tioners, that  a  reserve  of  the  extent  above  mentioned  is  not 


■»■*!*•,-  .«v..'»*»^ 


.,z:t:r; 


/  ••  . 


870 

needed  for  military  uses,  and  it  is  believed  that  a  quarter  of  a 
section  (one  hundred  and  sixty  acres),  would  be  amply  suffi- 
cient  for  the  uses  of  the  post. 

Ton  are  therefore  directed  to  cause  to  be  laid  off  a  reserve 
containing  about  a  quarter  section  of  land,  and  excluding,  as 
far  as  possible,  all  improvements  belonging  to  private  citizens 
and  others.  Should  it.be  found  necessary  to  include  any  such 
improvements  within  the  reserve,  a  special  report  will  be  made, 
to  enable  the  Department  to  judge  of  such  necessity,  and  the 
probable  cost  of  the  improvements  will  also  be  stated. 

The  boundaries  of  the  reserve  should  be  clearly  and  ac- 
curately stated  on  the  plat  of  survey,  so  that  the  same  may 
be  laid  down  on  the  plats  of  the  General  Land  OfSce. 

Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

Will.  A.  Graham, 
Acting  Secretary  of  War. 


Official : 


E.  D.  TOWNSBND, 

Aitiitaia  Ac^'utant  General. 


Headquarters  Pacific  Division, 

Benicia,  September  29, 1851. 
Hon.  C.  M.  Conrad,  Secretary  of  War: 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your 
communication  of  the  8th  ult.,  in  regard  to  certain  "peti- 
tions" from  citizens  of  Vancouver,  Oregon,  touching  the  ex- 
tent, &c.,  of  a  military  reserve  at  that  place,  and  beg  to  make 
the  following  remarks : 

By  the  treaty  with  England  establishing  the  northern 
boundary  of  Oregon,  the  "  possessory  rights  of  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company  were  to  be  respected."  That  Company  had, 
and  yet  has,  an  establishment  at  Vancouver,  where  they  have 
a  picket-work  with  block-houses  near  the  river,  with  grounds 
enclosed  by  fences  on  all  sides  of  the  picket-work,  of  greater 
or  less  extent,  which  grounds  have  been  cultivated  by  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company,  and  within  those  grounds  are  con- 


s 


as 


871 

tained  also  a  number  of  buildings,  store-houses,  &c.  Imme- 
diately west  of  these  enclosed  grounds,  along  the  river,  and 
extending  back  from  the  river,  there  is  quite  a  village  of  ordi- 
nary frontier  huts,  disposed  in  streets,  and  occupied  by  em- 
ployes of  the  Company,  for  whose  accommodation,  as  I  sup- 
pose, they  were  originally  erected ;  and  of  course  this  village, 
I  presume,  must  bo  considered  as  falling  within  the  ''posses- 
sory" rights  of  the  Oompany.  Besides  all  this,  the  Company 
has  milh  several  miles  above  Vancouver,  on  the  bank  of  the 
Columbia;  in  addition  to  which  the  Company  claims  an  unde- 
fined extent  of  cattle  range,  which  has  been  in  the  use  of  the 
Company  since  its  establishment  in  the  country. 

Such  seems  to  have  been  the  ponUion  of  the  Company  at  Van- 
couver when  the  United  States  troops  reached  there;  and  then, 
by  an  amicable  arrangoment  between  the  agent  of  the  Company 
and  the  United  States  commander,  the  troops  were  encamped, 
and  subsequently  erected  quarters,  upon  grounds  cleared  by 
the  Company,  immediately  in  rear  of  the  picket-work  and  en- 
closed grounds  of  the  Company;  a  portion  of  said  enclosed 
grounds  being  relinquished  by  the  Company  for  the  conve- 
nience of  the  troops,  to  be  paid  for  on  certain  terms  agreed 
upon. 

A  military  reservation  was  declared  of  four  miles,  including, 
but  subject  to,  the  claims  of  the  Company. 
.  In  this  state  of  things,  a  question  was  raised  by  settlers  in 
the  country  as  to  the  extent  of  the  ''possessory"  rights  of  the 
Company;  some  giving  the  opinion  that  those  rights  did  not 
extend  beyond  the  actual  enclosures.  In  this  view,  a  settler 
established  himself  and  has  built  a  house  on  the  river  bank 
about  a  mile,  or  perhaps  a  mile  and  a  quarter,  below  the 
picket-work  of  the  Company,  against  the  remonstrances  and 
repeated  efforts  of  the  agent  of  the  Company  to  prevent  it. 

This  act  is  regarded  by  the  Company  as  an  infringement  of 
its  rights  under  the  treaty;  and  I  take  pains  to  state  the  point 
as  clearly  as  I  am  able,  as  the  question  arising  under  it  may 
have  some  international  importance,  and  is  comparatively  in- 
significant so  far  as  the  military  reservation  is  concerned. 

The  county  authorities^  taking  the  same  limited  view  of  the 


872 


•    i 


rights  of  the  Companj,  have  laid  off  a  town,  and  have  disposed 
of  lots,  taking  in  the  actual  bnildings  occupied  by  the  employes 
of  the  Company,  and  are  only  restrained  from  actual  occupancy 
by  the  site  falling  within  the  declared  military  reservation ;  and 
if  now  the  reservation  should  be  restricted  to  narrow  limits  it 
could  not  fail  to  bring  about  a  most  unpleasant  state  of  things 
between  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  and  the  settlers  in  the 
country,  including  the  county  authorities. 

I  hope  the  importance  of  the  subject,  as  in  some  way  con- 
nected with  a  solemn  treaty  and  affecting  very  large  interests, 
will  excuse  the  length  of  this  communication  and  the  liberty 
I  take  of  suggesting  that,  having  just  returned  to  this  place 
from  a  visit  to  Vancouver,  I  am  of  opinion  that,  if  the  right 
of  the  English  to  the  navigation  of  the  Columbin  can  be  extin- 
guished at  the  same  time  a  purchase  by  the  United  States  of 
the  Hudson's  Bay  Company's  rights  in  Oregon,  is  very  desi- 
rable, and  would  amicably  put  an  end  to  or  turn  aside  a  threat- 
ening cause  of  very  troublesome  irritation. 

In  the  meantime  I  earnestly  recommend  that  no  orders  be 
given  touching  the  military  reservation  until  the  question  of 
purchase  or  non-purchase  be  decided ;  the  subject  of  which  is, 
I  understand,  now  under  consideration  at  Washington.  Should 
the  purchase  be  made,  it  will  be  an  advantage  to  the  country 
to  relinquish  the  grounds  to  the  people,  reserving  only  a  small 
garrison  site. 

I  do  not  myself  know  what  tribunal  can  make  a  decision 
that  would  be  satisfactory  to  the  parties  on  a  question  between 
the  Company  and  the  settlers,  as  to  the  "possessory"  rights 
of  the  former.  If  the  Company  is  to  be  restricted  to  actual 
enclosures,  what  becomes  of  the  village  now  filled  with  the 
people  of  the  Company,  and  what  becomes  of  the  cattle  and 
sheep  of  the  Company  now  running  at  large  ?  A  purchase  by 
the  United  States  seems  the  most  direct  and  least  objection- 
able mode  of  removing  all  difficulties,  the  relative  value  to  the 
United  States  being  far  beyond  the  intrinsic  value  of  the  im- 
provements and  the  property  of  the  Company ;  provided,  as  I 
have  said,  the  right  of  navigation  to  the  Columbia  by  the 
English  can  be  extinguished.    Under  all  the  circumstances,  I 


/:/ 


873 

have  decided  to  delay  executing  the  instructions  contained  in 
the  communication  of  the  8th  of  August,  respectfully  request- 
ing your  approval  of  this  step,  with  further  instructions. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  ser- 
vant, E.  A.  Hitchcock, 

Colonel  2d  Infantry,  Brevet  Brigadier  Gfeneral. 
Official:  E.  D.  Townsbnd, 

Assistant  Adjutant  General. 

Headquarters  Col.  Barracks,  0.  T., 

February  23,  1853. 
Major  :  *  *  *  i  would  also  urge  that  some 
decision  may  be  made  respecting  the  confirmation  of  the  mili- 
tary reserve  at  this  post.  As  it  now  stands,  it  appears  to  be 
a  constant  cause  for  irritation  with  the  citizens  and  the  legis- 
lature, as  you  may  have  seen  by  the  slip  I  forwarded  to  you 
by  last  mail. 

The  Hudson's  Bay  Company  have  given  their  consent  to  its 
confirmation,  and  it  can  be  done  without  compromising  the 
Government  in  the  matter,  by  reserving  their  possessory  rights^ 
as  Colonel  Loring  did  in  his  proclamation  of  it.  This  would 
completely  exclude  all  other  claimants,  and  give  the  courts  of 
justice  some  basis  to  throw  around  us  the  protection  of  the 
law.  This  would  settle  the  whole  subject  until  after  the  Hud- 
son's Bay  Company  shall  have  been  purchased  out,  when  the 
reservation  can  be  reduced  to  any  limits,  or  removed  altogether. 
For  full  details,  I  refer  you  to  my  last  letter,  with  the  papers 
accompanying  it. 
I  am,  major,  very  respectfully,  your  most  obedient  servant, 
(Signed)  B.  L.  E.  Bonneville, 

Lieutenant  Colonel,  ^th  Infantry. 
Maj.  E.  D.  TowNSEND,  Asst.  Adjt.  General, 

Headquarters  Pae.  Div.,  San  Francisco,  Cal. 

A  true  copy : 

E.  D.  Townsbnd,  Asst.  Adjt.  General, 

Headquarters  Pac.  Biv:,  San  Francisco,  March  28,  1853. 

Official:  E.  D.  Townsend, 

AssistarU  Acfjutant  General. 


\\ 


874 


Headquarters  Pacific  Division, 

San  Francisco,  March  80,  1868. 

Sir  :  I  enclose  herewith  an  extract  from  Lieutenant  Colonel 
Bonneville's  letter  of  February  28,  recommending  that  the 
military  reserve  at  Columbia  Barracks  be  declared.  I  respect- 
fully submit,  that  a  compliance  with  the  recommendation  in  the 
manner  suggested  would  at  once  put  a  stop  to  all  difiSculties, 
such  as  are  referred  to  in  my  letter  on  this  subject  of  Novem- 
ber 10, 1862. 

Having  alluded  to  that  letter,  I  will  remark  that  the  treaty 
referred  to  therein  as  having  been  violated  by  Mr.  Short's  set- 
tlement on  the  reserve  is  the  one  of  1846,  and  not  the  "Ash- 
burton  treaty,"  as  inadvertently  stated. 

As  an  additional  reason  for  making  the  reservation,  I  will 
observe  that  by  some  recent  proceedings  of  the  legislative  body 
in  Oregon,  an  attempt  has  been  made,  or  is  contemplated,  to 
take  possession  of  a  portion  of  the  reservation  for  a  county 
site,  in  disregard  of  both  the  rights  of  the  army  and  the  Hud- 
son's Bay  Company,  u&der  the  treaty.  Care  should  be  takeii 
to  make  the  reservation  subject  to  the  rights  of  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company. 

A  copy  of  the  map  of  the  reserve  was  forwarded  from  these 
headquarters  December  80,  1860,  and  its  receipt  was  acknow- 
ledged February  24, 1861 ;  but  as  it  does  not  appear  that  a 
description  of  the  limits  was  sent  at  the  same  time,  I  enclose 
a  copy  herewith. 

I  ara,  sir,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

E.  A.  HiTOQCOCK, 

Col.  2d  Inf.,  Bvt.  Brig.  General,  Oommanding. 
Col.  S.  Cooper, 

Adft  Gen.,  U.  S.  Army,  City  of  Washington,  D.  C. 

Official: 

E.   D.   TOWNSBND, 

Asaittant  Adjutan/t  General. 


o 

ft 
Pi 
o 
o 

1^ 

►—I 

Hi 

o 

< 
h) 


O 

M 
« 

H 

O 
H 
O 

w 

CO 


! 


%  4s|i 


'nil 


•111" 

8    2 -'5 


o  r  S  ^  i 


:£>; 


•     \ 


K 


»  o  £  2  2  a- 


in' 


i- 


gloria 


?  3  »i 


2  .r?' 


la 


,  .1'^ 

a^5 


s 


!i.a 


lia: 


ral. 


Q 
ft 

a? 

o 

o 

ft 

1-^ 


^ 


3 


jj-.^^ 


£.  >> 


-'3  §-  - 


S-«i=-^« 


' 


J 


I 


876 

Forbes  Barclay  has  this  daj  recorded  a  land  eUlm  in  Vm* 
oouver  District  as  follows,  to  wit:  Oommencing  at  a  tree  on 
the  north  bank  of  the  Columbia  river,  being  the  soutbeaft  of 
James  Douglas's  claim,  following  the  said  river  upwards  abont 
one  mile;  thence  about  north  one  mile  to  a  marked  troo; 
thence  about  west  to  the  northeast  corner  of  James  Douglai'f 
claim,  and  from  thence  to  the  place  of  beginning,  so  at  to  in* 
elude  about  640  acres  of  land.  And  the  claimant  statei  (bat 
he  holds  the  said  claim  without  occupancy. 

Dated  at  Oregon  City,  this  10th  day  of  October,  1845. 
Attest: 

J.  E.  LoNa,  Recorder, 

Endorsed  across  the  face  in  red  ink : 

Abandoned  by  the  personal  request  of  Mr.   Douglai  in 
favor  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  April  4,  1840. 
Attest : 

Thbo.  Maorudbb,  Recorder. 

I 

Endorsed  across  the  face  in  red  ink :  ' 

June  the  15th.     This  day  the  original  claimant,  Fofbof 
Barclay,  personally  appeared  and  directed  the  Rocoi'der  to 
enter  a  protest  against  the  above  transfer,  as  Mr.  Douglaii 
was  not  authorized  to  make  the  transfer. 
June  15,  1849. 
Attest : 

Theo.  Maqeudbb,  Recorder. 


Richard  Lane  has  this  day  recorded  a  land  claim  in  Vanoott* 
ver  District  as  follows,  to  wit :  Commencing  at  a  tree  on  the 
north  bank  of  the  Columbia  river,  being  the  southwest  aorner 
of  Francis  Ermatingor's  claim,  following  the  same  river  down- 
wards one  mile  to  another  marked  tree ;  thence  about  north 
one  mile  to  a  stake ;  thence  about  east  one  mile  to  the  north- 
west  corner  of  Francis  Ermatinger's  claim,  and  from  thence  to 
the  place  of  commencement,  so  as  to  include  about  640  acrei 


IM 


"H^S 


87: 

of  land.     And  the  claimant  states  that  he  holds  the  said  claim 
without  occupancy. 

Dated  at  Oregon  Oity,  this  10th  day  of  October,  1845. 
Attest : 

J.  E.  Long,  Recorder. 

Endotb  d  acroM  the  face  in  red  ink  -. 

Abandoned  by  the  personal  request  of  Mr.  James  Douglas 
in  favor  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  April  4,  1849. 
Attest: 

Theo.  Magruder,  Recorder. 


\  ' 


Thomas  Lowe  has  this  day  recorded  a  land  claim  in  Van* 
couver  District  as  follows,  to  wit :  Commencing  at  a  marked 
tree  about  one  mile  north  of  the  north  bank  of  the  Columbia 
river,  being  the  northeast  corner  of  James  Douglas's  claim ; 
thence  about  east  one  mile  to  the  northeast  corner  of  the 
claim  of  Forbes  Barclay ;  thence  north  one  mile  to  a  marked 
(?) ;  thence  about  west  one  mile  to  another  tree,  being  the 
northeast  corner  of  James  Graham's  claim,  and  from  thence 
to  the  place  of  beginning,  so  as  to  include  about  640  acres  of 
land.  And  the  claimant  states  that  he  holds  the  said  land 
without  occupancy. 

Dated  at  Oregon  City,  this  10th  day  of  October,  1845. 
Attest : 

J.  E.  Long,  Recorder. 

Endorsed  across  the  face  in  red  ink  : 

Abandoned  by  the  personal  request  of  Mr.  James  Douglas 
in  favor  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  April  4,  1849. 
Attest : 

Theo.  Magruder,  Recorder. 


John  McPhail  has  this  day  recorded  a  land  claim  in  Van- 
couver District  as  follows,  to  wit:  Commencing  at  a  tree  on 


i 


.f> 


878 

tbe  north  bank  of  the  Oolambia  river,  being  the  southeast 
Corner  of  Forbes  Barclay's  claim,  following  the  said  river 
upwards  about  one  mile  to  a  marked  tree;  thence  about  north 
one  mile  to  another  marked  tree;  thence  about  west  one  mile  to 
the  northeast  corner  of  Forbes  Barclay's  claim,  and  from  thenoe 
to  the  place  of  beginning,  so  as  to  include  about  640  acres  of 
land.  And  the  claimant  states  that  he  holds  the  said  claim 
without  occupancy. 

Dated  at  Oregon  City,  this  10th  day  of  October,- 1846. 
Attest : 

J.  E.  LONO,  Recorder. 

Endorsed  across  the  face  in  red  ink : 

Abandoned  at  the  personal  [request  of  Mr.  James  Douglas 
in  favor  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company. 
Attest : 

Theo.  Maoruder,  Recorder. 


Edward  Spencer  has  this  day  recorded  a  land  claim  in  Van- 
couver District  as  follows,  to  wit :  Commencing  at  a  tree  on 
tbe  north  bank  of  the  Columbia  river,  being  the  southwest 
^corner  of  the  claim  of  Richard  Lane,  following  the  said  river 
downwards  one  mile  to  a  marked  tree ;  thence  about  north  one 
mile  to  another  marked  tree ;  thence  about  east  one  mile  to 
the  northwest  corner  of  Richard  Lane's-  claim,  and  thence  to 
the  place  of  commencement,  o  as  to  include  about  640  acres 
of  land.  And  the  said  claimant  states  that  he  holds  the  said 
land  without  occupancy. 

Dated  at  Oregon  City,  this  10th  day  of  October,  1845. 
Attest : 

J.  E.  ho^Qi,  Recorder. 

Endorsed  acrossTtlie  face  in  red  ink : 

Abandoned  at  the  personal  request  of  Mr.  James  Douglas 
in  favor  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  April  4, 1849. 
Attest : 

Theo.  Maqruder,  Recorder. 


i^.. 


879 

James  Graham  has  tbis  day  recorded  a  land  claim  in  Yan- 
oouver  District  as  follows,  to  wit :  Oommencing  at  a  marked 
tree  one  mile  north  of  the  Columbia  river,  being  the  northwest 
corner  of  James  Douglas's  claim;  thence  about  east  one  mile 
to  a  tree  at  the  southwest  corner  of  Thomas  Lowe's  claim ; 
thence  about  north  one  mile  to  the  northwest  corner  of  Thomas 
Lowe's  claim  :  thence  about  west  one  mile  to  a  marked  tree, 
and  thence  to  the  place  of  commencement,  so  as  to  include 
about  640  acres  of  land.  And  the  claimant  states  that  he  holds 
the  said  claim  without  occupancy. 

Dated  at  Oregon  City,  this  10th  day  of  October,  1845. 
Attest : 

J.  E.  Long,  Recorder . 

Endorsed  across  the  face  in  red  ink : 

Abandoned  by  the  personal  request  of  Mr.  James  Douglas 
in  favor  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  April  4,  184b). 
Attest : 

Theo.  Magruf-  :.,  Recorder. 

JJudnr"^ }  toroBs  the  face  in  red  ink : 

June  20,  1849.      This  day  the  original  claimant,  James 
Graham,  has   entered  a  written   protest  against  the  above 
transfer,  stating  that  Mr.  Douglas  was  not  authorized  to  make 
said  transfer. 
Attest : 

Theo.  Magruder,  Recorder. 

Endorsed  across  the  face  in  red  ink : 

Abandoned  by  the  written  request  of  the  claimant,  Septem- 
ber 1,  1849. . 
Attest : 

Theo.  Magruder,  Recorder. 


)ougla8 


nder. 


William  Bruce  has  this  day  recorded  a  land  claim  in  Van- 
couver District  as  follows,  to  wit :  Commencing  at  a  tree  about 
one  mile  north  of  the  Columbia  river,  being  the  northwest 
26  B 


/ 


corner  of  Francis  Ermatinger's  claim ;  thence  about  east  one 
mile  to  the  northwest  corner  of  James  Douglas's  claim ;  thence 
about  ore  mile  north  to  the  northwest  corner  of  James  Gra- 
ham's claim  ;  thence  about  west  one  mile  to  a  marked  tree ; 
and  thence  to  the  place  of  beginning,  so  as  to  include  640 
acres  of  land.  And  the  claimant  states  that  he  holds  the  said 
claim  without  occupancy. 
Dated  at  Oregon  City,  this  10th  day  of  October,  1845. 
Attest : 

J.  E.  Long,  Recorder. 

Endorsed  across  the  face  in  red  ink : 

Abandoned  by  the  personal  request  of  Mr.  James  Douglas 
in  favor  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  April  4,  1849. 
Attest : 

•,  Theo.  Maqruder,  ^ecorc^er. 


James  Douglas,  of  Vancouver,  has  this  day  recorded  a  land 
claim  in  Vancouver  District  as  follows,  to  wit :  Commencing 
at  a  tree  on  the  bank  of  the  Columbia  river,  about  half  a  mile 
above  Fort  Vancouver,  following  the  windings  of  said  river  to 
jt  tree  about  half  a  mile  below  the  said  Fort  Vancouver;  from 
thence  to  a  tree  about  one  mib  nearly  north ;  thence  about 
east  to  another  tree  one  mile  distant;  and  thence  to  the  place 
of  commencement,  so  as  to  embrace  640  acres  of  land.  And 
the  claimant  states  that  he  holds  the  said  claim  by  personal 
occupancy. 

Dated  at  Oregon  City,  this  22d  day  of  September,  1845. 
Attest: 

J.  E.  LoxG,  Recorder. 

Endorsed  across  the  face  in  red  ink  : 

Abandoned  by  the  personal  request  of  the  claimant  in  favor 
of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  April  4,  1849.  . 

..  ,   Attest :  , 

Theo.  Maqruder,  Recorder. 


381 


EtBt  one 
thence 
ss  Gra- 
d  tree ; 
ide  640 
:he  said 

45. 

order. 

Douglas 
order. 


3d  a  land 
imencing 
ilf  a  mile 
1  river  to 
er;  from 
ce  about 

le  place 
And 

personal 


1845. 

corder. 

t  in  favor 
'.corder. 


Francis  Ermatinger  has  this  day  recorded  a  land  claim  in 
Vancouver  District  as  follows,  to  wit :  Commencing  at  a  tree 
on  the  north  J)ank  of  the  Columbia  river,  being  the  southwest 
corner  of  James  Douglas's  claim,  following  the  said  river 
downwards  to  another  tree  marked ;  thence  about  north  one 
mile  to  another  tree  marked  ;  thence  to  the  northwest  corner 
of  James  Douglas's  claim,  and  from  thence  to  the  place  of 
beginning,  so  as  to  include  about  640  acres  of  land.  And  the 
claimant  states  that  he  hol.ds  the  said  claim  without  occupancy. 

Dated  Oregon  City,  10th  October,  1845. 
Attest : 

J.  E.  Long,  Recorder. 

■»  "'   '       ' 

Endorsed  across  the  face  in  red  ink: 

Abandoned  by  A.  McKinley,  as  agent  for  the  claimant, 
together  with  all  improvements  on  the  claim,  in  favor  of  Wil- 
liam Sinclair,  March  6,  1848. 

Attest  : 
.  Theo.  Maorvder,  liecorder. 


State  of  Orehon,  Department  of  State. 
To  all  to  whom  these  presents  shall  come,  yreetlng : 

I,  Samuel  E.  May,  Secretary  of  Stuto  of  the  State  of  Oregon, 
hereby  certify  the  foregoing  to  he  a  correct  copy  and  trans- 
cript of  the  entire  original  rcconl-ontrics  of  the  notice  of 
claims  iif  James  Douglas,  Wni.  Bruce,  J.  Graham,  T.  Lowe, 
Ed.  Spencer,  11.  Lane,  F.  Erniatinger,  Forbes  Barclay,  and 
•John  Mt'Phail,  and  the  abaiHlomnent  of  the  same,  as  the  same 
is  recorded  in  pages  26,  27,  28,  20,  and  30,  in  Book  No.  1  of 
the  Land  Claim  Reconl,  kept  under  the  riovisional  Govern- 
ment of  Oregon,  which  said  book  and  original  record  are  now 
in  my  possession  as  lawful  custodian  tlicroof.  I  furtlier  cer- 
tify that,  after  diligent  search  for  the  same,  I  am  unable  to 
find  in  s\id  record  any  further  notice  of  any  other  claim  in 
which  tl.'^  Hudson's  Bay  Company  have,  or  had,  or  claimed  to 
have  an2^  interest  under  the  laws  of  Provisional  Government. 


m 


382 

I  further  certify  that  the  annexed  diagram  is  an  approxi- 
mately correct  representation  of  the  relative  position  of  the 
several  claims  above  described,  and  the  Hudson's  Bay  Com- 
pany's post  at  Vancouver,  on  the  Columbia  river. 

In  testimony  whereof,  I  have  hereunto  signed  my  name 
[seal.]  and  affixed  the  seal  of  the  State  of  Oregon,  this  19th 
day  of  December,  A.  D.  1866. 

Samuel  E.  May, 
■  '  Secretary  of  State. 


C— 11. 


Claim  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company^  growing  out  of  Indian 
hostilities.  {See  deposition  of  R.  J.  Atkinson,  Evidenc-i  of 
The  United  States  adsm.  The  Hudson  s  Bay  Company,  Pt, 
2,  p.  183. 

Treasury  Department, 
Third  Auditor's  Office,  August  14,  1866. 

Sir  :  As  verbally  requested  by  you,  I  enclose  herewith  a 
schedule  relative  to  the  claims  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company 
growing  out  of  Indian  hostilities  in  the  Territories  of  Oregon 
anH  Washington,  in  the  years  1855  and  1856,  which  were  filed 
in  this  office  on  the  11th  March,  1861. 

These  claims  amount  to  the  sum  of  $107,325  76,  upon  ad- 
justment of  which  awardb  amounting  to  the  sum  of  $73,911  89 
were  made  by  the  Third  Auditor  on  the  2l8t  September,  1861. 

Of  this  sum  the  amount  awarded  to  the  Hudson's  Bay  Com- 
pany was  $71,240  38,  upon  claims  amounting  to  the  sum  of 
$102,426  72,  which  awarded  sum  was  ordered  to  be  paid  to 
Messrs.  Maitland,  Piielps  &  Co.,  attorneys,  New  York. 

The  sum  of  $603  12  was  awarded  to  Dugald  Mactavish, 
upon  his  claims,  amounting  to  $771  62,  and  ordered  to  bo  paid 
to  !-ai(l  attorneys  for  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  assignees 
of  claimant. 

Tlie  sum  of  $1,881  10  was  awarded  to  W.  F.  Tolmie  upon 
his  claims,  amounting  to  $3,393  47,  and  ordered  to  be  paid  to 


383 


|ie  upon 
paid  to 


claimant,  in  care  of  said  Maitland,  Phelps,  &  Co.  The  sum  of 
$90  62  was  awarded  to  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Com- 
pany upon  the  claims  of  said  Company,  amounting  to  0553  95, 
and  ordered  to  be  paid  to  Wm.  F.  Tolmie,  agent,  in  care  of  Mait- 
land, Phelps  &  Co.  And  the  sum  of  $96  67  was  awarded  upon 
the  claim  of  James  Sinclair  for  $180,  and  ordered  to  be  paid 
to  claimant,  in  care  of  Maitland,  Phelps  &  Co. 

The  Commissioners  to  ascertain  and  report  upon  the  ex- 
penses incurred  in  said  war  were  appointed  by  John  B.  Floyd, 
Secretary  of  War,  under  the  act  of  18th  August,  1856,  and 
reported  to  him.  On  the  15th  January,  1858,  the  House  of 
Representatives  called  for  the  report,  which  was  transmitted 
by  Floyd  on  the  23d  of  the  same  month.  (See  House  Doc. 
No.  45,  Ist  session,  35th  Congress.)  From  this  report,  dated 
October  10,  1857,  it  appears  that  the  Commissioners  met  at 
Portland,  Oregon,  on  the  20th  October,  1856,  and  entered 
upon  the  duties  assigned  them.  This  office  has  no  further 
knowledge  relative  to  the  presentation  of  the  claims  to  the 
Commissioners. 

The  House  acted  by  ordering  the  Committee  on  Military 
Affairs  to  examine  the  claims  during  the  recess.  This  duty 
was  confided,  by  the  chairman  of  the  committee,  to  R.  J.  At- 
kinson, Esq.,  Third  Auditor,  at  whose  office  a  large  box  con- 
taining the  papers  had  been  previously  left. 

On  the  10th  January,  1859,  Mr.  Atkinson  addressed  the 
result  of  his  examination,  with  some  suggestions,  to  the  chair- 
man of  the  committee,  who  reported  the  same  to  the  House. 
(House  Doc.  No.  51,  35th  Congress,  2d  session.)  On  the  8th 
February,  1859,  the  House  ordered  the  Third  Auditor  to 
examine  the  claims  and  report  the  amount  due,  under  certain 
rules  prescribed  by  the  House.  On  the  7th  February,  1860, 
the  Auditor  made  a  report,  (Ex.  Doc.  No.  11,  36th  Congress, 
1st  session,)  and  on  the  2d  March,  1861,  an  act  was  passed 
ordering  that  officer  to  audit  the  claims  on  the  basis  of  his 
report. 

I  am  not  able  to  say  when  the  box  containing  the  papers 
was  left  at  this  office.  It  was  thought  at  the  time  that  the 
papers  should  have  gone  to  the  Secretary  of  War  with  the 


884 

Report  of  the  Commissioners;  but,  being  here,  the  House, 
by  its  resolution  of  February  8,  1859,  treated  them  as  ''on 
file"  In  this  office.  The  Report  of  the  Commissioners  was 
received  through  the  published  proceedings  of  Congress,  as 
before  stated. 

Relative  to  your  inquiry  as  to  whether  these  claims  of  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company  for  supplies,  &c.,  furnished  during 
said  war,  had  been  examined  and  allowed  by  the  Commis- 
sioners before  the  presentation  of  the  same  at  this'  office,  I 
have  to  state  that  the  Commissioners  examined  and  reported 
on  the  Territorial  showing  of  expenses  incurred.  These 
claims,  being  a  part  of  said  expenditure,  were  examined  and 
acted  on  by  the  Commissioners  and  reported  to  the  Secretary 
of  War.  No  claims  were  acted  on  by  the  Third  Auditor, 
except  such  {is  were  reported  by  the  Commissioners,  although 
the  rates  reported  as  just  by  the  Commissioners- were  disre- 
garded by  Cong^ress  in  the  law  authorizing  settlement,  they 
having  -been  considerably  reduced  in  the  recommendations  of 
t*'**  Audit*. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

A.  M.  Gangewbr, 
Acting  Auditor, 
Hon.  C.  CuSHiNG, 

d55ff street,  Washington,!).  C. 


t 


885 


Schedule  of  awardt  on  the  Oregon  and  Washington  Indian 
war  claimt  of  the  Hudton't  Bay  Company  and  others,  filed 
in  the  Third  Auditor's  office  on  the  llth  March,  1861,  hy 
Messrs,  Maitland,  Phelps  ^  Co.,  New  York. 


OLAIMASTe. 

CLAIMED.' 

AWABDEO. 

HudiOD 

B  Bftv  CoDDanv  #•.■•< 

$5,543  63 
1,000  00 
5,683  90 
r60  00 
9  50 
205  63 
2,719  60 
501  00 
3,212  30 
1,021  00 
1,500  00 
150  00 
322  00 
255  00 
162  73 
9,797  50 
73  82 
515  00 
811  00 
317  80 
27  87 
221  25 
138  50 
2,530  75 
480  00 
266  00 
36  00 
4,386  88 
1,870  00 
1,600  00 
172  50 
440  00 
9,085  00 
308  50 
32  00 
130  25 
70  00 
9  00 
67  35 
27  60 
78  50 
26  50 
1,750  00 
80  50 
39  30 

$3,828  20 
800  00 

<i 

tt 

3,852  57 
240  00 

II 

II 
11 

9  50 
135  50 

•t 

1,733  50 
501  00 

M 

<• 

2,150  70 
476  20 

II 

II 

1,365  00 
70  00 

Dacrald  Maetavifih •>......  ■•••< 

Huagon'a  Rav  r!ninna.nv 

107  33 

II 

'i. — "^    ' 

-228  67 

II 

II                       

1      103  60 

41 

II 

6,431  67 

60  17 

479  50 

<l 
•1 

II              ^,, 

II                    ... 

II 
II 
II 

II                             |^^_^ 

II              

II              

811  00 

317  80 

18  39 

II 

II 

139  07 

II 

11              ,,, ,.„ 

91  33 

II 

•1                            ^ 

1,887  17 

II 

II     '                           

320  00 

II 

•1 

177  33 

II 

*                 ......  ....«•*. ••■•■••• 

II              ,„., 

24  00 

II 

11              

2,909  10 

II 

II                     „, 

1,240  17 

II 
II 

•r            , , 

II                  ,; .' 

1,066  67 
116  50 

II 

II                  ,  ,. 

440  00 

II 

II                „,„ 

6,056  67 

•            •• 

II                                          „, 

146  42 

II 

II                           

24  00 

11 

M 

66  03 

Fuget'B 

Sound  Agricultoral  Company 

II 

35  00 
4  73 

1 

II 

36  40 

1 

II 

14  49" 

y.  F. 

11 

Tolmie 

49  92 

17  25 

II 

940  00 

-•     II 

53  33 

II 

18  99 

W%»»*-*'«-J>.    ■*!!■ 


nsi 


886 


0LAIHAHT8. 


W.  F.  Tolmie 


Paget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company. 

W.  F.  Tolmie , .. 

Dugald  Mactavish 

HudBon'B  Bay  Company 


Dugald  Mactavish 

fiudson's  Bay  Company. 
D.  MoTavish 


Hudson's  Bay  Company. 


James  Sinclair 

Hudson's  Bay  Company. 


Total. 


CLAIMED. 


444  30 

148  90 

369  72 

400  00 

10  00 

5  75 

380  00 

40  00 

54  00 

3,423  66 

4,131  25 

31  50 

535  40 

371  62 

400  00 

1,011  00] 

2,615  74  J 

12,735  90 

04  50 

2,177  40 

7,975  00 

1,325  00 

180  00 

1,968  85 

1,092  50 

50  00 

1.552  50 

5,795  60 


AVABDEO. 


$107,325  76 


238  88 

81  69 

210  54 

220  00 

6  67 

3  83 

Disallowed* 

40  00 

36  00 

'2,451  57 

3,267  50 

21  00 

535  07 

283  12 

320  00 

2,557  15 

8,534  15 
43  GO 

1,495  90 
.  5,410  50 

1,060  OO 
96  67 

1,371  47 

882  50 

33  33 

1,227  88 

3,883  70 


$73,911  89 


II- 


*ClBim  for  *'rabiUtence  fomisbed  families  of  men  in  eerrice  during  Indian  War"  diial- 
lowed.   The  Oovement  ia  not  compelled  to  pay  for  the  rapport  of  fiimiliea  of  rolantocn. 

I  certify  that  the  foregoing  is  a  true  and  correct  abstract 
from  the  records  of  this  office. 

A.  M.  Ganqewer, 

Acting  Auditor.   , 
Treasury  Department, 

Third  Auditor's  Office,  Aiigutt  14, 1866. 


ADDITIONAL  DOCUMENTS. 


IB 


FILED  BY  THE  UNITED  STATES  IN  THE  CASE  OF 
THE  HUDSON'S  BAY  COMPANY. 


12.  Dispatch  of  Sir  E.  B.   Lytton  to  Governor   Douglas, 

dated  September  2,  1858,  with  Sign  Manual  enclosed, 
and  reply  of  Governor  Douglas,  dated  November  6, 
1858.  Parliamentary  Papers,  British  Columbia,  Pt.  1, 
pp.  51  and  9 ;  Pt.  2,  p.  24. 

13.  Extract  from  dispatch  of  Governor  Douglas  to  Sir  E.  B. 

Lytton,  dated  October  26,  1858,  Articles  7  and  8. 
Parliamentary  Papers,  British  Columbia ;  Pt.  2,  p.  9. 

14.  Dispatch  from  Governor  Douglas  to  Sir  E.  B.  Lytton, 

dated  November  27, 1858.  Parliamentary  Papers,  Brit- 
ish Columbia;  Pt.  2,  p.  36. 


t 


• 


Ebeatum,  in  No.  4. 
Pago  208,  line  6,  for  "  February  4,  1859,"  read  "  December  7,  1858." 


■* 


i«MW »*—[» 


888 


I 


y, 


/( 


C— 12. 

No.  18. — Copi/  of  Dispatch  from  the  Right  Honorable  Sir  E. 
B.  Lytton,  Bart.,  to  Governor  Douglas. 

[No.  8.] 

Downing  Strbbt,  September  2,  1868. 
Sir  :  Referring  to  my  dispatch  No.  8,  (Vancouver's  Island,) 
of  the  14th  ultimo,  I  transmit  to  you,  herewith,  the  Queen's 
revocation  of  the  Crown  Grant  of  the  80th  May,  1888,  to  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company,  in  so  far  as  the  said  grant  embraces 
or  extends  to  the  territories  comprised  within  the  colony  of 
British  Columbia. 

I  have,  &c., 
(Signed)  E.  B.  Lytton. 

Governor  Douglas, 

&c.,  &o. 


Copy  of  an  instrument  under  the  Royal  Sign  Manual,  revoking 
so  much  of  the  Crown  Grant  of  30<A  May,  1888,  to  the 
Hudson's  Bay   Company,  for  exclusive  trading  with  the 

"  Indians,  as  relates  to  the  territories  comprised  within  the 
colony  of  British  Columbia,  dated  2d  September,  1858. 


Victoria,  by  the  grace  of  God  of  the  United  Kingdom  of 
Great  Britain  and  Ireland  Queen,  Defender  of  the  Faith,  to 
all  whom  these  presents  shall  come,  greeting  : 

Whereas  by  an  instrument,  under  the  hand  and  seal  of  the 
Right  Honorable  Lord  Glenelg,  then  one  of  our  Principal  Secre- 
taries of  State,  and  dated  the  30tb  day  of  May,  1838,  we  did, 
for  the  reasons  and  considerations  therein  recited,  grant 
and  give  our  license  to  the  Governor  and  Company  of  Adven- 
turers trading  to  Hudson's  Bay,  and  their  successors,  for  the 
exclusive  privilege  of  trading  with  the  Indians  in  all  such 
parts  of  North  America  to  the  northward  and  to  the  westward 


889 


of  the  lands  and  territories  belonging  to  the  United  States  of 
America  as  should  not  form  part  of  any  of  our  provinces  in 
North  America,  or  of  any  lands  or  territories  belonging  to  the 
said  United  States  of  America,  or  to  any  European  Govern- 
ment, State,  or  Power,  but  subject,  nevertheless,  as  therein- 
after mentioned ;  and  did  give,  grant,  and  secure  to  the  said 
Governor  and  Company,  and  their  successors,  the  sole  and 
exclusive  privilege,  for  the  full  period  of  twenty-one  years  from 
the  date  of  our  said  grant,  of  trading  with  the  Indians  in  all 
such  parts  of  North  America  as  aforesaid,  (except  as  therein- 
after mentioned :)  Provided,  nevertheless,  and  we  did  thereby 
declare  our  pleasure  to  be,  that  nothing  therein  contained 
should  extend,  or  be  construed,  to  prevent  the  establishment 
by  us,  our  heirs,  or  successors,  within  the  territories  aforesaid, 
or  any  of  them,  of  any  colony  or  colonies,  province  or  pro- 
vinces, or  the  annexing  any  part  of  the  aforesaid  territories 
to  any  existing  colony  or  colonies,  to  us  in  right  of  our  Im- 
perial Crown  belonging,  or  constituting  any  such  form  of 
civil  government  as  to  us  might  seem  meet,  within  any  such 
colony  or  colonies,  province  or  provinces;  and  we  did  thereby 
reserve  to  us,  our  heirs,  and  successors,  full  power  and  au- 
thority to  revoke  our  said  grant,  or  any  part  thereof,  in  so  far 
as  the  same  might  embrace  or  extend  to  any  of  the  territories 
aforesaid,  which  might  thereafter  be  comprised  within  any 
colony  or  colonies  province,  or  provinces,  as  aforesaid: 

And  whereas  we  have,  by  our  commission  under  the  great 
seal  of  our  United  Kingdom  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland, 
bearing  date  at  Westminster,  this  second  day  of  September, 
1858,  in  the  twenty-second  year  of  our  reign,  and  in  virtue  as 
well  of  the  powers  vested  in  us  by  an  act  entitled,  ''  An  act  to 
provide  for  the  government  of  British  Columbia,"  as  of  all 
other  powers  and  authorities  belong  to  us  in  that  behalf,  estab- 
lished within  the  territories  aforesaid  a  colony,  under  the  title 
of  British  Columbia,  bounded,  as  in  the  said  recited  act  is 
mentioned,  to  the  south  by  the  frontier  of  the  United  States 
of  America,  to  the  east  by  th'e  main  chain  of  the  Bocky  Moun- 
tains, to  the  north  by  Simpson's  river  and  the  Finlay  branch 
of  the  Peace  river,  and  to  the  west  by  the  Pacific  ocean,  and 


1^ 


I 


u 


i 


I. 

I 

I' 
}| 


890 

inolading  Queen  Charlotte's  Island,  and  all  other  islands  acy*- 
oent  to  said  territories,  except  as  therein-after  excepted  s 

And  whereas  it  has  appeared  to  us  expedient  that  tbo  right 
of  exclusive  trade  with  the  Indians  given  by  us  in  mannor 
aforesaid  to  the  Governor  and  Company  of  Adventurers  trading 
to  Hudson's  Bay,  and  their  successors,  within  the  territoriei 
in  the  said  instrument  described,  should  no  longer  be  exercised 
by  them  within  so  much  of  those  territories  as  is  comprised 
within  the  said  colony  of  British  Columbia: 

Now,  know  ye  that  we  do  hereby  revoke  our  said  grant  con* 
tained  in  the  hereinbefore-recited  instrument  of  the  80th  May, 
1888,  in  so  far  as  the  same  embraces  or  extends  to  the  torri- 
tories  comprised  within  the  said  colony  of  British  Columbia. 

And  we  do  hereby  declare,  that  this  present  revocation  of 
our  said  grant  shall  take  effect  within  the  said  colony  m  soon 
as  it  shall  have  been  proclaimed  there  by  the  officer  adminif- 
tering  the  government  thereof. 


l{ 


i 


.1 


V 


V 


Oopi/  of  Dispatch  from  Governor  Douglaa  to  the  Right  Honora- 
ble Sir  E.  B.  LyttoUf  Bart. 

[No.  23.] 

Victoria,  Vancouveb'u  Inland, 
November  6,  1868, 

[Received  January  15,  1859.] 

Sir  :  In  acknowledging  receipt  of  your  dispatch  of  the  2d 
September,  1858,  No.  3,  transmitting  to  me  th&  Queen'i  rcvo« 
cation  of  the  Crown  Grant  of  the  80th  May,  183H,  to  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company,  in  so  far  as  relates  to  the  territoricf 
comprised  within  the  colony  of  British  Columbia,  I  beg  to 
acquaint  you  that  the  necessary  proclamation  upon  this  Sttb* 
ject  will  be  made  in  the  course  of  a  few  days. 

I  have,  &c., 
(Signed)  James  DouaLAS,  Governor. 

The  Right  Hon.  Sir  E.  B.  Lytton,  Bart., 

ke.,  ke.f  ko. 


i 


IV-I 


891 


C— 18. 

Extract  from  a  Dispatch  from  Governor  Douglas  to  the  Right 

Honor  able  Sir  E.  B.  Lytton,  Bart. 
(No.  6.) 

Victoria,  Vancouver's  Island, 

October  20,  1858. 

■¥  ■¥  ■if  ■¥  If  ■^  it^ 

1.  I  observe  your  remarks  as  to  the  limit  and  extent  of  the 
rights  devised  by  the  Crown  to  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company, 
and  I  have  to  advise  Her  Majesty's  Government  that  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company  no  longer  enjoys  any  exclusive  rights 
of  trade  whatsoever,  and  is  placed  in  all  respects  in  the  same 
position  as  other  British  subjects  on  this  coast. 

8.  I  will  take  the  liborty,  which  I  feel  satisfied  you  will 
under  the  circumstances  excuse,  of  correcting  an  erroneous 
impression  which  appears  to  pervade  the  public  mind  in  Eng- 
land. I  allude  to  the  often-asserted  statement  that  the  Hud- 
son's Bay  Company  have  made  an  unjust  and  oppressive  use 
of  their  power  in  this  country — a  statement  which  I  can 
assure  Her  Majesty's  Government  is  altogether  unfounded. 
On  the  contrary,  it  would  be  an  easy  matter  to  prove  that 
they  have  been  of  signal  service  to  their  country,  and  that 
the  British  territory  on  the  northwest  coast  is  an  acquisition 
won  for  the  Crown  entirely  by  the  enterprise  and  energy  of 
the  Hudson's  Bay  Company;  for,  on  commencing  business 
operations  in  this  quarter,  the  whole  coast  was  held  by  for- 
eigners, and  it  is  only  since  the  year  1846  that  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company  have  derived  any  real  protection  from  the 
license  of  trade,  as  until  that  epoch  the  trade  was  open  to  all 
citizens  of  the  United  States  in  common  with  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company. 

Perhaps  you  will  excuse  my  saying  so  much,  as  a  sense  of 
justice  leads  mo  to  exert  the  little  influence  I  possess  in  pro- 
tecting from  injustice  men  who  have  served  their  country  so 
faithfully  and  so  well. 

At  this  moment  I  am  making  use  of  the  Hudson's  Bay 


;* 


892 

Company's  establishments  for  every  public  office,  and  to  their 
servants,  for  want  of  other  means,  I  commit  in  perfect  confi- 

dence  the  custody  of  the  public  money. 

if  nt  *  *  *  *  * 

I  have,  &c., 
(Signed)  Jamr8  DoUflLA8,  Governor. 

The  Right  Hon.  Sir  E.  B.  Lytton,  Bart.,  * 

&c.,  &c.,  &c. 


C— 14. 


Copy  of  D/npatch  from  Governor  Doiigla$  to  the  lU<jht  Hon- 
arable  Sir  E.  B.  Lytton,  Bart. 

(No.  37.) 

Victoria,  Vancouver's  Island, 

November  27,  1858. 

[Received  January  29,  1859.] 

Sir  :  1.  I  have  the  honor  to  iicknowlcdge  the  receipt  of  your 
communication  No.  20,  of  the  16th  September  last. 

2.  It  is  to  mo  a  most  satisfactory  and  encouraging  cum- 
stance  that  Her  Majesty's  Government  continues  to  approve 
of  my  pioceediiigs  in  administering  the'govcrnment  of  British 
Columbia.  I  feel  truly  grateful  for  your  kind  support,  and, 
in  consequence,  more  capable  of  encountering  the  difficulties 
with  which,  though  in  a  lesser  degree,  wo  are  still  beset. 

3.  I  have  with  much  pleasure,  and  according  to  your  in- 
structions, conveyed  to  Captain  Prevost  and  Captain  Rich- 
ards, the  officers  commanding  H.  M.  S.  "Satellite"  and 
"Plumper,"  your  acknowledgments  for  the  cordial  assist- 
ance which  they  have  rendered  to  this  government  whenever 
their  services  were  required,  and  they  arc  gratified  by  the 
compliment. 

4.  Her  Majesty's  Government  may  feel  assured  that  I  will 
endeavor  to  dispense  as  much  as  possible  with  the  use  of  mili- 
tary assistance  in  administering  the  affairs  of  government; 


898 


ent ; 


and  I  havo  no  doubt  that,  with  time,  and  when  there  is  a  fixed 
population  having  vested  rights  and  interests  at  stake  in  the 
country,  a  military  force  may  in  a  great  measure  become 
unnecessary;  but,  until  those  changes  take  place,  I  would 
strongly  recommend  the  maintenance  of  a  respectable  mili- 
tary or  naval  force,  to  represent  the  power  and  uphold  the 
dignity  of  Her  Majesty's  Government. 

5.  I  would  also  take  the  liberty  of  suggesting  the  employ- 
ment of  one  or  two  gun-boats  of  light  draught,  for  the  pro- 
tection of  the  public  revenue,  and  also  for  conveying;  Govern- 
ment stores  and  troops  from  one  part  of  the  coast  to  another, 
a  service  that  cannot  bo  effected  in  counliy  ahi])^  without 
much  delay  and  enormous  expense. 

6.  Those  vessels  will  also  be  urgently  required  for  the  pro- 
tection of  persons  who  may  be  induced,  by  the  revocntion  of 
the  Hudson's  Bay  Company's  license,  to  emljM-k  in  tlio  trade 
of  the  coast  north  of  Frazer's  river  with  the  :  nmeroiis  and 
warlike  tribes  of  Indians  inhabiting  that  part  of  llritish 
Columbia,  and  who  will  not  fail  to  deuian('  the  protoction  of 
Government  so  obviously  requisite  in  the  prosecution  of  their 
commercial  pursuit? 

7.  Rear  Admiral  Baynes,  with  whom  1  have  conversed  on 
the  subject,  is  of  opinion  that  those  gun-boat;;  ;iro  alsn  capable 
of  navigating  Frazer's  river,  and  it  is  certain  that  their  pres- 
ence M.)uld  havo  a  powerful  and  salutary  iitfluenco  on  the 
foreign  population  of  the  country. 

8.  The  Bear  Admiral  is  also  of  opinion  tliat  two  of  those 
vessels  might  be  detached  without  inconvenience  from  the 
fleet  now  employed  on  the  coast  of  Cliina — a  circumstance 
which  I  submit  for  your  consideration,  ntid  most  earnestly 
hoping  that  the  suggestion  may  be  favorably  entertained. 

9.  It  is,  perhaps,  unnecessary  to  occupy  your  time  with 
remarks  concerning  the  privileges  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Com- 
pany, which  have  ceased  to  exist  in  British  Columbia. 

10.  We  have  succeeded  with  difficulty  in  preventing  the 
unlawful  occupation  of  the  public  domain,  and  I  look  forward 
with  anxiety  for  C'>lonel  Moody's  arrival,  to  commence  the 
survey  and  allotment  of  land  in  British  Columbia. 


,-,^l".'"' 


m^n^ 


J 


894 


/  / 


11.  I  observe  the  appointment  of  Mr.  W.  Hamley  to  the 
office  of  collector  of  customs  for  British  Columbia,  and  that 
he  was  to  sail  in  the  "  Thames  City"  in  a  few  days  from  the 
date  of  your  dispatch. 

12.  My  own  views  entirely  concur  with  your  remarks  on 
the  great  importance  to  the  general  social  welfare  and  dignity 
of  the  colony  that  gentlemen  should  be  encouraged  to  come 
to  this  country  by  the  hope  of  obtaining  professional  occupa- 
tion as  stipendiary  magistrates,  or  in  other  respectable  public 
appointments;  and  there  are  really  very  few  persons,  the  offi- 
cers of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  excepted,  qualified  to  fill 
offices  of  trust  and  responsibility;  and  I  would  remark,  in 
reference  to  the  officers  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  that 
they  are  engaged  in  other  pursuits,  and  have  in  no  instance 
been  appointed  to  any  office  under  government,  nor  do  any  of 
then  appear  disposed  to  accept  of  any  public  employment. 

13.  I  would,  for  these  reasons,  recommend  that  careful 
appointments  should  be  made  in  England.  There  is  here  a 
wide  field  for  such  situations,  and  the  qualities  requisite  are, 
integrity,  sobriety,  firmness,  zeal,  industry,  implicit  obedience 
to  orders,  and  a  practical  acquaintance  with  the  nature  of  the 
duties  to  be  performed. 

14.  I  shall  most  gladly  attend  to  your  wishes  for  any  news- 
papers containing  mi;tter  worthy  of  attention,  and  shall  not 
fail  to  inform  you  of  every  thing  of  importance  that  passes 
in  British  Columbia. 

I  have,  &c., 
(Signed)  James  Douglas,  Governor. 

The  Right  Hon.  Sir  E.  B.  Lytton,  5ar«., 

&c.,  &c.,  &c. 


i-' 


^^  ■   llJJ!l''iilllilipP'>'|  ■       "'fJ.il"^'l"li 


^  896 

LIST  OF  MAP^AND  PLATS  FILED  BY  THE  UNITED 
.,  STATES. 

1.  Goast-Sarvey  map  of  the  mouth  of  Oolumbia  river,  ao 
companying  evidence  of  Wm.  B.  McMurtrie  in  the  mdtter  ot 
the  Hadson's  Bay  Company. 

2.  Land-OfSce  map  of  Oregon,  1866. 

3.  Land-Office  map  of  Washington  Territory,  1865. 

4.  Map  of  the  United  States  Government  Reserve  of  Van- 
couver, 1850,  surveyed  and  drawn  by  Lieutenant  James  Stuart, 
2d  Lieut.  R.  M.  R.,  B'vt  Capt.,  U.  S.  A.,  records  War  Depart- 
ment, referred  to  in  United  States  Documents,  C — 9. 

5.  Map  of  the  mouth  of  the  Columbia  river,  enlarged  from 
Wilkea'  small  map  and  other  data,  by  M.  E.  Van  Buren,  Capt. 
R.  M.  R.,  from  Engineer  Department,  and  certified  by  E.  D. 
Townsend,  Assistant  Adjutant  General,  k.-.  companying  extract 
from  report.  United  States  Documents.  0 — 8. 

6.  Plat  of  the  Hudson'^s  Bay  Cc  mpany's  claim  at  Fort 
Vancouver,  as  described  in  a  letter  from  Chief  Faptor  John 
Ballenden,  to  Mr.  J.  B.  Preston,  Surveyor  General  of  the 
Territory  of  Oregon,  dated  July  30, 1852,  on  file  in  General 
Land  Office. 

7.  Plat  of  the  land  around  Fort  Vancouver,  from  official 
surveys  in  the  General  Land  Office. 

8.  Map  of  the  Military  Department  of  Oregon,  1853,  from 
office  of  Explorations  and  Surveys,  War  Department. 

9.  Map  of  Military  Reservation  at  Fort  Vancouver,  sur- 
veyed under  direction  of  Captain  Geo.  Thom,  Topographical 
Engineers,  by  Lieutenants  J.  B.  Wheeler  and  J.  Dixon,  Corps 
Topographical  Er  gineers,  by  order  of  Brigadier  General  W.  S. 
Harney,  1859. 

10.  Map  of  '*  The  Provinces  of  British  Columbia  and  Van- 
couver Island,  with  portions  of  the  United  States  and  Hud- 
son's Bay  Territories,"  contained  in  a  Parliamentary  Blue 
Book,  entitled  "Papers  Relative  to  the  Affairs  of.-  British 
Columbia." 

11.  Map  of  Steilacoom  Harbor,  United  States  Coast  Sur- 
vey, referred  to  in  the  deposition  of  William  B.  McMurtrie 
in  the  matter  of  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company. 

27  B 


J"      r. 


utMiiiiiii^ 


I 


WM 


pfl^iuwi ,  u«...„iii  II  I  ipuiii  I      .« 


<J 


**   AUG  31  1894 


^-^^^ 


>^ 


*<-; 


'•# 


Jl^.. 


IjHII  iIT  I    '-'  • 


inpjHIPPQl^iiii  I  i«^,<li<    ■'••'mm 


397 


LIST  OF  PHOTOGRAPHS  FILED  BY  THE   UNITED 

STATES. 

.1.  Photograph  of  Mission  House  at  Kootenay,  marked  <'A," 
accompanying  dl|>ositioQa  of  G.  C.  Gardner  and  of  J.  M.  Al- 
den. 

2.  Photograph  of  Hudson's  Bay  Company's  Post  at  Colvlle, 
marked  "B,"  accompanying  deposition  of  G.  0.  Gardner. 

3.  Photograph  of  interior  of  Hudson's  Bay  Company's  Post 
of  Fort  Vancouver,  accompanying  deposition  of  George  Gibbs, 
marked  "C." 

3|.  Photograph  qf  Camp  of  British  Boundary  Commission, 
Fort  Vancouver,  accompanying  deposition  of  George  Gibbs, 
marked  «D." 

4.  Photograph  of  exterior  and  interior  of  Fort  Hall,  from 
report  of  Major  0.  Cross,  United  States  Army,  to  Quarter- 
master General,  dated  June  80, 1850. 

5.  Photograph  of  interior  and  exterior  of  Fort  Bois^,  from 
teport  of  Major  0.  Cross,  United  States  Army,  to  Quarter- 
master General,  dated  June  30, 1850. 

6.  Photograph  Bird's-eye  View  of  Fort  Vancouver,  from 
&  lithograph  in  volume  12,  part  1st,  Pacific  Railroad  Reports. 

7.  Photograph  of  Fort  Walla-Walla,  from  a  lithograph  in 
volume  12,  part  1st,  Pacific  Railroad  Reports. 

8.  Photograph  of  Fort  Okanagan,  from  a  lithograph  in 
volume  12,  part  1st,  Pacific  Railroad  Reports. 

9.  Photograph  of  Hudson's  Bay  Company's  Mill,  near  Fort 
Colvile,  from  a  lithograph  in  volume  12,  part  1st,  Pacific  Rail- 
road Reports. 

10.  Photographic  view  at  Fort  Colvile,  looking  across  the 
Columbia  River,  copy  from  photograph  by  English  Boundary 
Coirinnission,  taken  by  British  officers  on  the  Northwestern 
Boundary  Survey,  marked  '*E,"  referred  to  in  the  supplement 
tal  testimony  of  G.  C.  Gardner. 


I 


/' 


,^g|Plpil— iii<r  -^ 


